Thamel: ACC maybe eliminating divisions in 2023

Sources: Under discussion this week at ACC meetings will be the future of scheduling, including the potential to eliminate divisions as early as 2023. This was discussed last week on calls to set up the meetings.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.


Is this good or bad for us??

"Give me a fuΒ’king beer", Anonymous Genius

If I know anything about the ACC it's that it will hurt us.

We put the K in Kwality

I mean, if you want to play Clemson, Louisville, etc in Blacksburg more than once a generation, then it's good.

Cons: more challenging path to ACCCG
Pros: we don't have to play stupid BC every year

Easily a net positive.

Twitter me

But why would they sacrifice such a great rivalry as VT-BC? I mean, they've played like every year since 2005 even though they aren't in the same division!! /s

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. TBF I think it made sense at the time the divisions first came out? But the ACC is very different now from what it was in the mid 00's when the current divisions were first imagined, and we've had time to develop animosity with different schools. I care more about salty Tar hole and Shitsburg tears than BC these days.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

It only made sense because "tHeY wErE iN tHe BiG eAsT tOgEtHeR" which is BS. Miami, fine, we got in each other's way plenty of times with championships on the line. BC? Who cared about BC? The last time they'd done anything before joining the ACC was that Flukie pass in 1984! Almost 2 decades prior! Basketball- they'd won the BE conference in 2001. whoopdefriggindoo.

Ugh, it was like being paired up with your annoying little cousin who sometimes trips you and wins a potato sack race.

.... this is the most perfectly written thing I've ever seen on this site

Con: We might not be guaranteed a game against UVA.

We potentially won't have to lose to Pitt Syracuse and BC most of the time in this new model, so I am all for it. Although playing more often in the carrier dome means more losses most likely.

Am I the only one who thinks Pitt/VT is a worthwhile rivalry to play up? Particularly for the 'blue-collar, lunchpail" type marketing? i mean, add WVU and that's a solid tri-fecta of Appalachian hate. Syracuse and BC I could definitely do without seeing on the regular but Pitt? I don't know...

Edit... and wouldn't adding WVU force a renegotiation to our ESPN contract?

I would be in favor of adding WVU. The only problem though is if we go the pod route, that means WVU and Pitt have to be in a pod with us. That's not necessarily bad, but one of Miami and UVA has to go then, and we know we aren't giving up the UVA game. So we would lost that annual rival with Miami, plus they have to be with FSU.

Agree there's no perfect solution but VT could schedule non-con matchups with either. Plus I assume that with 4-team pods the league could/would schedule such that every school plays a home/home with every other league school over a four year period.

...I'd rather keep Miami than Pitt

21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA:
MV7, MV5, LT3, Braxton Burmeister, Ryan Willis, Josh Jackson, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.

Don't necessarily disagree but... I don't see a high probability for us ending up in a 4-team pod with Miami no matter what happens.

Edit: The only possibility I see for that is if there are designated rivalries cemented outside the pod... i.e VT/UVA, Miami/FSU... and I don't know how that would impact the 4-year scheduling cycle.

Other than FSU, we are really the only historical rival in the conference for Miami. They have a little BE history with Pitt who they've had on rivalry weekend the last several years, but that's sort of reaching. But you know they will keep Miami and FSU together - would we be part of that with UVA? Not sure, but I doubt they want FSU Miami and Clemson all in a pod together either.

Please God don't make BC a permanent rival.

If it's two make it Miami and UVA
If It's 3 please add NC State

I'd like UVA, Miami and UNC as rivals.

We put the K in Kwality

no chance tech gets unc.

thamel said a 2 team rival proposal is out there. we getting stuck with that bc bag. just ready yourself.


"My advice to you... is to start drinking heavily."-John Blutarsky

It'll be 3 rivals each so that UNC, Duke, NCSU, and Wake can form their own pod

You god damn well know ours will be Miami, UVa, and BC. Outside chance it could be GT instead of Miami, but we all know BC will continue to get shoved down our throats

This is my school
This is home

BC needs Syracuse. They deserve each other.

We put the K in Kwality

F*ck, Marry, Kill. BC, Pitt, Cause. Go!

Also I think they are a natural threesome for rivalries.

Kill Pitt, F BC, Marry Cuse, at least you will get a dome instead of Boston weather in November. That still felt gross, I am sorry.

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

Kill Pitt, agree, easy
F BC, maybe?
Marry Cuse, definitely, because you know it's not gonna be a sexless marriage cause you get F'd by the dome ..... just might not be the sex you thought you'd be getting when you said yes at the alter

Kill, kill, kill

We put the K in Kwality

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

We put the K in Kwality

UVA Miami FSU 🀞🏼🀞🏼

If we assume 3 for the NC pod that leaves us with

BC - Pitt, Cuse, ?
Clemson - GT, FSU, ?
FSU - Miami, UVA, Clemson
GT - Clemson, VT, ?
UofL - Pitt, Cuse, ?
Miami - FSU, VT, ?
Pitt - Cuse, BC, UofL
Cuse - Pitt, BC, UofL
UVA - VT, FSU, ?
VT - UVA, Miami, GT

This makes the most sense to me for rivalries and distances.

Sadly the official motto for the ACC is no sense makes sense

To fill in the ?'s:

BC gets Clemson. FSU gets GT instead of UVA. Miami and L'Ville get UVA.

I actually like the look of all of those. Still how well a team does each year is completely at the mercy of randomness of scheduling, and there's not way to avoid absurd near impossible scenarios to judge

UVA is going to want to keep UNC.

UVa doesn't have the sway to keep that rivalry. They did in 2004 because they were the expansion swing vote, but now?

What are they gonna do, leave? And give the ACC their tv money for the next 25 years?

This is my school
This is home

With an 8 game schedule and no divisions there is no way to accurately determine a the top 2 teams in a 14 team conference. For that reason alone it's a non starter for me.

Teams are likely to get screwed every year.

Possible scenarios:
3 8-0 teams;
1 8-0, 3 7-1 (where the 7-1's had a three way tie and 8-0 played none of them);
1 8-0, 4 6-2
5 6-2, etc.

With divisions you know two things:
1. That only two teams could go undefeated,
2. That each team in a division can be equally compared via head to head and record vs division opponents.

When you scrap divisions you have none of that control over the final results.

The first scenario (three 8-0 teams) is extremely unlikely, and would be amazing for the conference. Given our current TV/revenue issues, this would be big. That would likely mean three top-10 ACC teams going into conference championship weekend.

Anyways, You can have tiebreakers - cfp rank, OOC record, points differential, second degree wins, etc.

I understand your opinion, I just think the upside (more variety of opponents, better games, presumably more revenue for the ACC), outweighs the potential downside (especially given it's unlikelihood).

Edit: As I'm thinking about it, I don't think the first scenario is possible. Maybe someone who is both smarter and has more time than I could run the numbers and confirm.

Twitter me

Having multi-way ties at 8-0 or 7-1 on a regular basis is going to be unlikely. But it will be better for the conference to plan for that and have rules that never or rarely have to be used than to embarrass themselves when the situation happens and they can't figure out who the champion is.

And it's better to have as many tiebreakers decided on the field as possible. There's several issues with the other kinds of tiebreakers, and while they're fine for being the 4th, 5th, or 6th level, we really don't want to see them as the first or second tiebreaker. If you put point differential in there, you're going to start seeing people get all up in arms about running up the score. The problem with using rankings is that they are very often reactive.

Overall, I think divisions are better, but we don't have to always have the same divisions every year.

As for the possibility of more than two 8-0 teams? Let me figure this out as generically and quickly as possible....

Let's say Team #1 plays Teams #7-14.
Team #2 plays Teams #6-13.
Team #3 plays Teams #5-12.

Just with those games listed, Teams 1-3 are all 8-0, and teams 5-14 all have at least one loss. And Team #4 isn't even listed, so they could even go 8-0, since they wouldn't face Teams 1-3.

Expanding that out, here's a sample schedule of 14 teams. I'm hoping I counted right and didn't mix up any matchups.

Team 1 - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Team 2 - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Team 3 - 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Team 4 - 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14
Team 5 - 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14
Team 6 - 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14
Team 7 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13
Team 8 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14
Team 9 - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14
Team 10 - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12
Team 11 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13
Team 12 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14
Team 13 - 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14
Team 14 - 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13

Yep and while the odds of 3 or god forbid 4 8-0 teams are very low, (and that possibility should not exist at all). The odds of having to use a tiebreaker at all are extremely high and it's also likely to be between more than two teams.

The only fair tiebreaker in my mind after head to head is record of opponents beaten, followed by record vs common opponents, followed by overall record of opponents. If you're somehow still tied there then look at the record of each opponent's opponent (similar to how RPI does in basketball).

I still don't love it but at least with that you have some objectivity. (Of course it means nothing with 3+ 8-0 teams, you'd have to let them all get a shot).

Higher CFP ranking would be the worst tiebreaker, introducing total subjectivity and the biases/interests of a small group of athletic directors into the decision.

Or the ACC could just say F it and have the last weekend of the season adjust to an ACC Final Four where the pod champs play each other for the right to get to Charlotte. (maybe have it a true crossover weekend where you just pair off teams cross division by placement at the end of the year and rotate pod matchups every year).

This is my school
This is home

You mean like this?

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

I actually love that idea. With pod champs being determined by 1. Record vs pod and 2. Overall ACC record. Making your 3 rivalry games vs your pod the most important of the year.

Then you could also have 1 permanent rival outside your pod and 3 rotating games each year.

Alright now that you mention it....

Home and away vs each team in your pod, that's 6. Then every year you play home or away everyone in another pod to get to an even 10. At the end of the year you can do a 4 team playoff with pod champs to get the ACC champ over 2 weeks, and the first round being between the pods that scheduled each other during the regular season. With this kind of scheduling, you're never more than 2 seasons away from playing any given team in the ACC during the regular season, and every player will have the opportunity to play every school in the conference if they stay 4 years, and are guaranteed to play home and away at half.

If you want a 13 game season, that leaves room for 3 OOC games. And if you're lucky enough to make the CFP, you're looking at a 17 games to get to the title game. That's fair, and before anyone complains about the number of games for these students, my opinion is that if they want to be treated like pros with pro paychecks, then have em play a pro slate.

This is my school
This is home

Why would you play teams in your pod twice in the same year instead of other in-conference schools or non-conference games?

Maybe not as unlikely as you think. Two teams draw 8 of the bottom 10 teams in the conference but not each other. The best team wins all of their games.

Could the ACC create a schedule that makes it impossible to have more than two 8-0 teams? eg; half the teams play each other, and the other half of teams play each other, then you switch it up each year? Essentially, design it as 'dynamic divisions'

Twitter me

Well, now we're back to divisions (of some sort). But knowing how the ACC usually plays out on the field, we'd end up with 4 or 5 7-1/6-2 teams all bunched at the top with no head to head tiebreakers.

Actually the no clear cut top 2 is what sells this for me. That's the fun of college football.

Bonus points awarded for highly convoluted tie-breakers. No using human polls either. Like less get down to points scored against common teams beat by common opponents.

Would you have the same opinion if we were the third 8-0 team left out?

Would you have the same opinion ifwhen we were the third 8-0 team left out?


100% yeah, because we can claim we would have we won and not actually find out. We can claim that we are ACC regulated season champions. We probably go to a better bowl game than the loser of ACC championship game. We will all come here and loudly complain about the ACC bias. That thread will be epic. We can argue with the fans of the championship team the rest of our lives. This is what make college football fun. The best thing in college football in the past decade is could UCF taken Bama. They beat Auburn that beat Bama. If I wanted a fair game to follow I'd watch the NFL.

Say we are undefeated 12-0 and don't make the championship game to two teams that have OOC losses, we're a shoe in for the playoff, it might even be better that way because the playoff committee will want to right the wrong of the ACC.

Can't see the ACC forcing UNC/LOLUVA to stop being played yearly as it's the oldest rivalry in the ACC.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

This everyone is thinking there's gonna be an NC "pod" 0 chance UNC/UVA rivalry goes away

(add if applicable) /s

living in NC, trust me all 4 schools want to get the pod together, and UNC is absolutely willing to drop the UVa annual event to make it happen.

This is my school
This is home

the oldest rivalry slapfight in the ACC

My dream is adding ND full time, and grabbing Navy, or another possible school. 16 teams, 4 pods, 4 pod winners play each other in a semi, and then the winners play for the title.

If we go to 4 with no divisions or pods, we can still get the semifinal matchups.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

I didn't read your comment before posting. Same idea. Thoughts on divisions below?

I am shocked other people have the same idea./s

But, I'd like to make the weekend before the ACC Championship game a bit more meaningful.

Pods A&B and Pods C&D would be paired together for 2023. Meaning you get 7 ACC games.

On semifinal weekend, you get the winners of the pods. Let's call it the 3:30pm game and 7pm game.
A1 vs. D1
B1 vs. C1

Winners advance to the title game. All 4 teams will play in a bowl game.

The rest of the weekend, you get 6 matchups across ESPN family of networks, where teams will play for bowl eligibility. That's right. 6 automatic bowl bids up for grabs. And you have to win on the final weekend. Random draw just like the Champions League.

A vs. D and B vs. C.

Could a 4-7 team go up against a 9-2 team with an auto bowl bid on the line? You bet your ass they will. 9-2 team better win.

Once the dust settles, any bowl eligible teams that lost would be sacrificed to the at-large gods for bowl selection.

Flip the pods for the following year. Teams play everyone within 3 years.

Pod setup? No idea, y'all can run with it, but assume I all 4 NC schools will stay together.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

If you are ND, why in the world would you join the ACC for football with the deal they have now? less than zero incentive

The only reason ND would do this is if the new playoff is designed in such way that a conference championship is (basically) a requirement to get in.

Under all of the new post season models rumored, none of them incentivize ND to join a conference.

Twitter me

That's true today unless you are Bama with 1-4 losses or another SEC team with 1 loss to Bama. ND gets special treatment like always. What other team has gotten in the 4 team playoff without winning their league?

Every team to qualify for the CFB has either:

  • Been an undefeated team
  • Been a conference champion with 1 or 0 losses
  • Been a conference runner up with the same or better record than the conference champion AND a better record than every other non-playoff bound P5 conference champion

In 2018, ND made the CFP as an undefeated team. In 2020, they made the CFP as the ACC runner up with the same record (including a win over) the ACC Champion Clemson Tigers (satisfying all of the criteria in bullet #3).

There has never been a 2-loss team in the CFP, and there has never been a 1-loss independent team in the CFP.

Twitter me

If and BIG if on ND joining fully, I think we should add WVU as the 16th team. It just makes sense geographically, plus as much flak as we give the 'Neers, they are an intense rivalry for us and Pitt. Plus they have some history with 'Cuse and some of the other former BE schools. Navy and that option offense just doesn't do much for me, plus WVU would bring more in the other sports to the table.

Because Annapolis is closer to Boston than Blacksburg. See what I'm getting at here?

Annapolis is much nicer than DC, College Park or Baltimore.

We dropped a school in MD, not a bad idea to grab another to keep recruiting fingers in MD.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Why is a conference with a shit TV deal adding teams again?

I think adding WVU would be better for the sport. For the ACC, it would lose each team money.

Twitter me

Agree. Ideally I wouldn't want to add any more schools. But the only way we can get to an even number for 4 team pods is through addition. Would frankly love to give BC and Cuse the boot, but I know it wouldn't happen. If we have to add, outside of ND, WVU is the best option IMO all things considered.

I would think Cincy would be the add, not because of their recent run, but traditional basketball school and because of their location and historic rivalries with Louisville and Pitt. WVU would be the other option as I am sure the Big12 ain't looking so great to (either of) them now, but they are a terrible fit.

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

Ever since Louisville joined and then the ND pseudo-joined, I have thought the ACC should go to something like what the NFL does.

Get a 16th team and setup four 4-team divisions. Play the 3 teams in your division every season. Other 5 conference games rotate through the 12 teams not in your division. That means you get a full home-and-home with every team in the conference every 5 years instead of the current 12 years.

Not sure who gets to be the 16th team. Not sure how you handle ND and get them to agree. Two teams with best records play in ACCCG, but also opens door to semifinal games if you take the best team from each division.

But I could see this format working out long-term and bringing stability to conference membership.

Thoughts on the divisions?

Trying to maintain some rivalries, but I could see a lot of different combos:
Clemson, GT, UNC, NCSU
Duke, Wake, ND, Louisville
Pitt, BC, Syracuse, New Team

Another option is that once a full home-and-home is achieved in 5 years, then realign the four divisions for the next 5 years.

The historical rivalries in the ACC make it too difficult to go to pods:

  • UVA/VT
  • UNC/Duke
  • Miami/FSU
  • Miami/VT
  • Clemson/GT
  • UNC/NCst

These are the big rivalries that the ACC will want to keep in tact. To keep just these 7 rivalries in tact, you'll need to do permanent rivalries instead of pods.

Twitter me

I remember being so stoked when VT got into the ACC- as stoked as I have ever been as a fan. I remember equally wanting to jump out a window when the conference added Pitt, Louisville, and Cuse. Fuck right off with that shit. Hate those fucking schools. We are in the old big east for the most part.

If you ask me what I think is probably best

South - FSU, Clemson, Miami, GT
Piedmont - Duke, Wake, NCSU, UNC
North - Pitt, BC, Syracuse, ND
Mid-Atlantic - VT, UVa, Louisville, New Team

What I think is probably the most realistic of happening...

Pod A - FSU, Miami, BC, ND
Pod B - VT, UVa, Duke, UNC
Pod C - GT, Clemson, Wake, NCSU
Pod D - Pitt, Cuse, UofL, New Team

This is my school
This is home

16 teams and go to a 9-game conference schedule. Play each of the teams in your division once, and two teams from each of the other three divisions on a rotating basis. If you need to preserve rivalries either a) put them in the same division or b) make each team have a permanent inter-division rival they play every year.

You get a home-and-home with every team in the conference once every 6 years and each team can have up to 6 "rivalries" (3 intra-division and 3 inter-division) played annually.

Just need to make sure that you can logically arrange the teams to make this work out.

Pod North:
Boston College
Notre Dame

Pod Center:
Virginia Tech
US Naval Academy

Pod Carolina
NC State

Pod South
Georgia Tech
Florida State

You play everybody in your pod + 1 other pod + 1 locked team from each other pod.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

Please dear God no, we just got rid of a triple offense in the ACC I don't want it back

I understand the hate for Navy but I think we would have to get them to convince Notre Dame to join

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

Agreed. I am cool with Navy joining both because of their relationship with ND as well as their location and that they're a school I can root for.

IMHO each major conference should have one service academy in it. Army in the Big Ten, Air Force in the Pac12. I guess Citadel in the SEC? No idea. And in this timeline the Big 12 has dissolved.

I get that viewpoint but do we really want to add a football program that at max can win 10 games a year and more often than not goes below .500 and losing to almost all their major OOC opponents? I mean that's 3/4 of the current ACC do we want to dilute it more

It has little to do with wins & losses, prestige, gameday experience, etc. The entrance criteria start with "Does adding this team INCREASE overall revenue taking into account the additional split?" If the answer to that question is no, then there's no need to discuss further. In the immortal words of Stuart Scott: "If it don't make dollars then it don't make sense!"

The only possible argument for Navy is if that is the only way to convince ND to join; in that case, the question becomes: Does the addition of ND+Navy bring in more than (approximately) $70M of new revenue? If not, the deal's a loser.

"Those who jump into the void owe no explanation to those who stand and watch."

Navy 🀒, would rather have ECU.

In reality tho you're looking at WVU Cincy or UCF. Don't like Cincy but it's probably them. UCF is the best choice but no way FSU and Miami let them join

Hard disagree. You can't put the ECU in your conference toothpaste back in the bottle. You are no longer a peer to the SEC, you are now C USA or the new big east. Hard no on directional U...

I semi agree but it's the same or worse with Navy. They offer nothing except a trip to Annapolis. Plus they are severely limited on who they can recruit.

Maybe it's a VA or NOVA thing to like Navy, but nobody where I'm from thinks of Navy as anything but bottom tier football that occasionally surprises because of the option.

I think some people only think of the Kennan Reynolds or Malcom Perry years - where navy was a legit top 25 team - and forget that's Navy's ceiling, not their usual standing.

That, plus the fact that they are in the ACC footprint, and they would (in theory) incentivize ND to join the conference.

Overall, when it comes to adding Navy to the ACC:

Twitter me

Definitely no more directional U's in the ACC. That rules out West Virginia... :)

The ECU experiment was a dismal failure and they showed their ass as a school, athletic department, and fanbase when the series got cancelled because of their Athletic Department's decisions/actions. I'd take App State before ECU. Hell, I'd take WESTERN Carolina U before letting ECU darken our conference doorstep.

I feel similarly about WVU, though for different reasons. Perfectly happy not subjecting our guys to their home fans every other year.

Navy is as meh as you can get. Adds nothing to the footprint and no help tv-wise.

So who would I add? App State except were already NC-heavy, maybe Cincy. What's UMBC been up to? Can we crowdfund a football program for them?

.... this is the most perfectly written thing I've ever seen on this site

I guarantee this will not end complaining about scheduling.

Pods Suck. Why do people keep bringing up pods?

Because people who like pods have a different opinion than you. Pods allow for teams to more consistently play other teams in the same conference while maintaining consistent rivalries. There's also a clear path to a conference title.

"That move was slicker than a peeled onion in a bowl of snot." -Mike Burnop

Why do you dislike pods?

Twitter me

The taste

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

He later calls this a 3-5-5 model. 3 permanent teams, rotate 5 every other year. So, pods.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Here is my guess:
BC, Cuse, Pitt
Wake, Duke, NC State
Miami, FSU, ND?
Louisville, GT, Clemson

damn... I don't like that... at least at first glance.

I think you would have groups of four, since you'd have three permanent rivals, but all four teams wouldn't necessarily have to play each other depending on how they want to do it. Like we could play UVA, Miami, BC, and UVA could play VT, UNC, FSU. It would just be more confusing to schedule it out.

That drops the UNC -UVA matchup, but I love the Pitt Syr BC teams.

VT and Miami have played 30 consecutive seasons (every season starting in 1992). Over this time period, the series is tied 15-15. Ten of those games have been one-score games. It would suck to this rivalry go by the wayside.

Twitter me

I definitely hope VT can play Miami every year, but the plus of this model is we'd play every team at least every other year.

So VT wouldn't go through 6 recruiting classes between matchups at least.

Edit: Really hope The Athletic article about pods is just a guess. UVA, Louisville, and BC would suck. I'm so tired of playing BC every year.

Yes,that's the Hokie Bird riding a camel. Why'd you ask?

All of the twitter ones have been so much worse than any of the ones up here. Not just for us but around the whole league, these guys have no idea what they're talking about

Remember this is the #GOACC, so maybe they do.

My biggest worry is that these guys are usually plugged into what is actually going to happen and they might be trying to ease us into a bad scenario.

This is my school
This is home

The unfortunate thing with the ACC is there are too many random small schools without huge sports followings that we have to just stick somewhere. No one wants to play BC. We are stuck with an athletics program that brings little value to the league these days because we thought nearly 20 years ago we were really getting into the Boston TV market. Lol they don't really care about college sports in Boston.

To be honest, the best thing that could happen is the ACC either contracts and gives some schools the boot (looking at you BC and Syracuse), or there is some seismic shift and the Alliance conferences + ND radically reform/realign. Trying to fix the ACC as is will be a big broken mess

I was at the 2010 VT-BC game, it was 7-0 at half and everyone left for a preseason hockey game.

Not everybody left. Some of us stayed to have our hearts ripped out.

You're a BC fan?

Thought that was the rain game. Mixed up the games, 2010 was when we beat them 19-0 at their house. First time they had been shut out at home in a long time. Fond memories of doing the let's go Hokies chant across their field to the group of Hokies on the opposite side of their stadium. Too many games over too many years.

2010 will be a fond memory. I went to every game except Miami and the Bowl game that year. By the end of the year, I think I was feeling more jet lagged than the team. Working full time and traveling to almost all the games was crazy.

Regardless, I have left early a grand total of once and that was when somebody started feeling ill in my group.

FWIW - Andy Staples originally posted that months ago

Edit: on his most recent podcast, he apologized for putting BC and VT together and said Miami would make more sense. He also said he was shocked that he got backlash (much less the amount he got) from VT fans.

Anyways, BC is the new ECU

Twitter me

What is the fucking fascination with BC and VT??? seriously? We are not rivals- its a nothing game.

Probably started with the Matt Ryan games and all the emotion/hype that came from that. Then the ACC made us permanent crossovers with the idea that more games would fuel a rivalry, when it did the opposite.

There's an assumption that you can start/make a rivalry better with more games but a lot of times less is more.

Got the timeline backwards there. We got paired up in 2005, the Matt Ryan and ACCCG years were 2007-2008.

We got stuck with BC because there weren't any options. Once you took care of the natural rivalries such as the NC schools, Miami/FSU, and Clemson/GT, you're left with VT, uva, Maryland, and BC. So we all got paired off based on our previous conference history.

The real issue developed in 2013 when the conference made the mistake of adding Pitt and Syracuse. We should have either increased the number of conference games or ditched the permanent crossovers to keep us with two rotational spots. And if they had to, swap a couple of schools around to maintain certain rivalries.

Oh wow didn't realize crossovers were set that long ago.

I agree we def should've ditched permanent crossovers, it's just hard to realign divisions to meet all the rivalries: VT -> UVA, UVA -> UNC, UNC -> Duke, UNC -> State, VT -> Miami, Miami -> FSU, FSU -> Clemson, now you're at 8 one too many for a division.

Nine conference games would hurt the league too much imo. It's an extra game for teams to beat up on one another. As long as the ACC is considered weak, extra games will only hurt our overall national rankings. Imo all conferences should be capped at 8 games and forced to play 4 FBS nonconference games so that we can get more data points between conferences.

Assuming that most schools schedule (on average) 1 P5, 2 G5, and 1 FCS OOC games each year, the reality is that the 9th conference game will most often replace a G5 or FCS game on the schedule.

Even if you get matched up with Duke as your 9th conference game, that's still going to be better scheduling than playing against a lower-tier team.

It's still an extra loss for half the league, conference games are zero sum, I'd rather we get an extra opportunity to beat someone out of conference. Plus fans enjoy the variation or playing an extra no conference game.

And calculated SOS doesn't mean as much in football as in hoops, it's almost entirely subjective.

More conference games = more money for the ACC. That said, as a fan, I'd rather see variety in matchups.

Twitter me

I said it at the time, but adding Pitt and Cuse brought no value at all to the league. It was just like Swofford was adding schools for the sake of adding schools. Cut the pie into two more slices and the return was nothing.

Among many reasons, one reason in particular I can't stand the ACC is we left the Big East to match up with the Carolina schools, Clemson, FSU, etc. Our schedule in recent years looks more like we are still in the Big East, with BC, Pitt, Cuse, Miami all mainstays on our schedule. Obviously Miami is a great rivalry for us, but plying BC and Pitt annually sucks when we should be playing NC State, Clemson, FSU, etc. Louisville has been in the conference since 2014 and we have played them a grand total of one time. Just no creativity when it comes to scheduling.

You're not thinking with your basketball hat on, those schools have a lot of history in basketball and in theory would have made the ACC a deep basketball conference. The first raid of the ACC was football as UM and VT were the worst two programs in the BE. BC was okay. Then there was the basketball expansion, UofL had just won a championship, Cuse was a formative foe, and Pitt had a really nice run for years in the BE.

But that's exactly the problem with the ACC and why it will end up just like the Big East. Football drives the bus with tv revenue. Staying too focused on basketball first is why the revenue gap is massive. And now the SEC and Big 10 are making so much money that they are injecting it into basketball. The ACC isn't even what it used to be as a basketball conference.

they are always what they've been, two basketball schools and some times a 3rd show up

It brought stability, as well as two new tv markets (which mattered at the time).

Adding Pitt/Syracuse was the equivalent of the B10 adding MD/Rutgers. The difference is the B10 (pre-expansion) had way more fan interest than the ACC.

Twitter me

Because the league never wanted us and forcing us into an annual series with BC is our punishment for crashing the ACC's party.

I wish I was joking

This is my school
This is home

BC also doesn't have anyone else to pair up with. A small private school from Massachusetts has little history with any of the rest of the conference. We have only been in the ACC since 2004 but we played Clemson and other ACC schools a decent amount OOC while in the Big East and before. Because they have no geographic or obvious rival, they get lumped with us because of the former BE association. Why in the world the ACC ever took BC is beyond me.

They have Pitt and Syracuse now, perfect for them. Lump Louisville in and you have all kinds of old rivalries in play.

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

Sounds like a fantastic pod right there with those four.

Small private schools? They should be matched up with either Wake Forest or Miami then.

This is the truth. Bottom line.

I'll be pissed if we get lumped into annual games with BC and Louisville, though I think I'd rather have those two than Pitt, i fucking hate Pitt

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Number of Times Each ACC Team Has Played Each Other

FIELD1 BC Clemson Duke FSU GT Louisville Miami UNC NC St Pitt Cuse LOLUVA VT WF
BC 31 8 18 11 14 30 6 18 32 54 7 30 28
Clemson 31 44 34 86 7 12 58 89 5 10 49 36 87
Duke 8 44 19 89 3 19 107 83 25 5 73 29 101
FSU 18 34 19 26 22 66 21 41 10 14 28 37 39
GT 11 86 89 26 2 26 55 31 16 4 43 18 31
Louisville 14 7 3 22 2 15 8 11 18 20 10 8 9
Miami 30 12 19 66 26 15 23 17 41 23 19 39 11
UNC 6 58 107 21 55 8 23 111 15 6 127 43 109
NC St 18 89 83 41 31 11 17 111 11 15 59 50 115
Pitt 32 5 25 10 16 18 41 15 11 76 13 21 2
Cuse 54 10 5 14 4 20 23 6 15 76 5 19 11
LOLUVA 7 49 73 28 43 10 19 127 59 13 5 103 51
VT 30 36 29 37 18 8 39 43 50 21 19 103 39
WF 28 87 101 39 31 9 11 109 115 2 11 51 39

Using this info this is what I came up with for potential permanent rivals (everyone gets their top rival and at least 2 of their top 3 or 4 rivals, and five in fact get all of their top 3 rivals):

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville
Clemson - NC State, WF, GT
Duke - UNC, WF, GT
FSU - Miami, VT, Louisville
GT - Duke, Clemson, LOLUVA
Louisville - FSU, Syracuse, BC
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT
NC St - WF, UNC, Clemson
Pitt - Syracuse, Miami, BC
Syracuse - Pitt, BC, Louisville
WF - NC St, Duke, Clemson

Looks like a solid list to me, I would be happy with that, and I think most other fan bases would too. FSU is a bit weird to me, bit we are not likely going to break into that NC quadrant. The only two options I would want instead of FSU would be GT and Clemson mostly due to proximity and if I had a gun to my head, would accept Louisville or Pitt, again proximity.

Not sure if the effort required, but what does this look like in the fantasy world where ND is a full member?

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

I think a 4+4 would be a happy medium. You get less variability with scheduling and still play each team every other year.

We could have: UVA, Miami, UNC, GT; everyone else is bi-yearly, meaning every player gets to play at least one home and away vs every team in the conference over 4 years.

Doesn't need to pods - could just be protected rivalries

Twitter me

No, pods are just smaller divisions, where all of the teams involved are always matched up.

Besides, pods don't work with only 14 teams.

Sure it can,

POD 1 - Nobody really cares
UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and NC State

POD 2 - We cause travel budgets to spike
BC, UofL, Cuse

POD 3 - Football POD
Clemson, Miami, FSU, VT, Pitt, GT

The champion of the ACC is based on the winner of POD 3. They each play a 5 game POD schedule, then one from the long travel list, one from the no one care list, and a rival game, VT would be UVA.

Then we just don't care how the rest of the league is scheduled.

I took this to mean not pods but each team will have three protected rivals. It lets us get away with scrapping divisions at only 14 teams which is good since the pie slices won't get smaller with adding more schools. But it will make determining the ACCCG potentially a lot more wonky. I'm guessing you would operate on overall conference standings, but man without a round-robin that could produce some awful tie-breakers.

Here's a video from Thamel on Packer & Durham this morning:

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Just realized that UVA has to play Coastal the week before playing us. Probably scheduled it a while back thinking it was a cupcake... LOL

I like the idea of pods more than I like two divisions.

I like a few permanent rivals you play every year more than I like pods, with the non-permanent rivals rotating on 3- or 4- year schedules. I think there are the right amount of teams such that any 4-year player could play a home-and-home against every school at least once. If there aren't, then it's close.

And I'd like for our three permanent rivals to be LOLUVA, Miami, and GT. If not GT then I hate to say it but Pitt. Then UNC but I think UNC is kinda off the table because they'd have three other primary permanent rivals.

I also want Pitt to play either WVU or PSU every year, forever.

I'd like to rotate with PSU WVU Maryland and Tennessee, and honestly of the 4 I'd like play the Vols the most

You're well justified but personally I would like Maryland to suck donkey balls

If BC is one of the 3 we play every year I'll puke!

Even when you get skunked; fishing never lets you down. 🎣

The good news is that the UVA Medical Center has a burn unit, so Mike in Virginia won't have too far to go to get care.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

This is the greatest video I've seen in a while.

LolUVA fans are also obnoxious. But I guess all 27 fans aren't enough to get under people's skin but so much.

Are there obnoxious Hokies, yes, but what really gets under the hoos skin is the fact that they think they are better in every facet and we continue to find more ways to kick their asses. Just smiling after a win is probably obnoxious to them. Knowing their superiority complex is crumbling everytime we beat them does make me gloat a bit more toward them than other fan bases though.

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

Beating them in baseball really makes me laugh. Whit really is crushing it.

Yeah a national title in non-varsity lacrosse would be great because we could have gloated that we won a title in lacrosse, which might upset them a bit, especially having to explain that it's non-varsity.