Advertisements

The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

New Divisions for ACC? January 8, 2014 Update

According to ESPN, Swofford suggests that the ACC (or at least he) favors greater latitude in determining who plays in a conference championship game.  If the NCAA were to change the rule to allow a conference championship game to feature two teams–without regard to divisions–how would you divide the teams for division purposes?

Let us know below.

Original article:

According to Twitter, specifically: https://twitter.com/larrywilliamsti/status/409357740176179200, the ACC is going to re-consider the idea of the divisions.

The Confidential remains on board for this:

North: Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville

South: Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

With these permanent rivalries: Miami-Florida State; Virginia-UNC.  Or matching up each team in the North with the team directly below it in the South.  There could be some re-arrangement over time too.  Perhaps rotating the matchups between the private schools every two years.  And rotating the trio of opponents for Clemson, NC State, and Louisville likewise.  Only Miami/FSU and Virginia/UNC would be permanent rivalry games (as well they should).

The real opposition would be from Virginia and Virginia Tech.  However, both schools have to be staring at a reality where wins are not easy to come by.  Duke is not a pushover anymore.  Nobody is.

The ultimate dream, of course, is for Notre Dame to join someday, along with perhaps UConn, in the North, with Virginia and Virginia Tech slotted in the South.  But one should not be pinning hopes on that.  Of course, as long as we are dreaming, we might as well put Texas, the Green Bay Packers, and the team with Kathy Ireland as a kicker in the league too.

Anyway, we have talked about this ad nauseam, what is your take?

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

9 thoughts on “New Divisions for ACC? January 8, 2014 Update

  1. M. Caffrey on said:

    The divisions you propose are fine, but I would further recommend reducing the number of non-con games to 2 – allowing for one FCS “tune-up” game and a regional rival (FSU/Florida, Georgia Tech/Georgia, Clemson/So. Carolina, SYR/Maryland), or one of Notre Dame’s 5-ACC games, or provide the flexibility for teams to play one game/year in a new area for recruiting areas (Midwest, Texas, etc…).

    You’ll still have a few teams that don’t play each year, but you won’t have 10-year gaps between teams from different divisions.

    • The ACC really does not need to worry about playing games in different recruiting areas. And 10 conference game means a lot of seasons with only 5 or 6 home games. The schools that pack their stadiums need 6 or 7 home games a year. The conference needs to get to 9 games before talking 10.

      • M. Caffrey on said:

        First of all, I don’t see a big difference between 9 conference games and 10. If you’re going to 9 games, you might as well go to 10.

        The ACC should worry about recruiting battles with other conferences. It’s great to have the Florida speedsters at skill positions but you still need corn-fed o-linemen and other players for the trenches. Northern schools like Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and even Boston College can benefit greatly by playing some games in the mid-west and other places in the rust belt like Ohio and Michigan, especially as they will now have to compete against Rutgers and Maryland tapping into these fertile B1G areas. Some of the southern teams could likely benefit from playing in Texas or even California.

        As for getting more home games, the playoff system is going to put more emphasis on strength of schedule, so padding your schedule with the sunbelt conference and BCS bottom-ten teams at home isn’t going to cut it. The result will be a need for more quality teams, most of which are likely going to want a home-home series.

        With a 10-game conference schedule, you’ll get 5 home games automatically, plus 1 FCS tune-up each year, and with an alternating OOC rivalry game you’ll get a 7th home games every other year. If you’re doing regional rivalries, with some finagling most ACC teams could get their OOC game played in a neutral/NFL site somewhere nearby to both schools, which is practically a home game. Look at the revenue that SU made by playing Penn State and USC at MetLife Stadium…

      • M. Caffrey on said:

        Here’s a crazy thought: what if the NCAA allowed teams to have a 13th game if one of their games is in a Neutral location? Teams like Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse wouldn’t be penalized or miss on a chance for a home game when they play at AT&T Stadium, FedEx Field, or Met Life.

  2. Ren.hoek on said:

    Love this site, but I could not disagree more with your north-south divisions idea for one reason: it would drive UVA into the arms of the B1G. They would be miserable in that setup. Best solution (if the NCAA allows) is to scrap divisions and still have a title game. 3 permanent rivals per school, 5 rotating games. You play everyone in 2 years. Only glitch is tie breakers if there is no head to head to head competition.

    • You could take the @ highest ranked teams or let the playoff selection committe pick them as well. If all five power conf did this it would be like an extra playoff round.

  3. Pingback: ACC Attendance by the numbers | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL

  4. I think the probability of the NCAA approving a non-division, championship game format is 100%. After all, if the Big 12 is going to remain viable, they need this to happen. They’re voting yes. The SEC wants more Alabama/Florida games, LSU/Georgia games. Sure, EVERY game in that conference is big, but like in the ACC, a lot of teams go far too long without playing each other. They’re voting yes. You’d have to think just based off size (14, same as the SEC and ACC) that the B1G would be on board as well. The Pac-12 is a little trickier, but let’s not pretend that they have as much influence over the NCAA as the SEC and B1G. They’d probably go along because it wouldn’t make much of a difference to them either way. The ACC, is obviously on board. Swofford wants more VT/Clemson games, Florida State/Georgia Tech games. These are going to be occurring at least every other year if the format changes. It’s a win-win for the conference and fans.

    A guy on ESPN posted this setup for the three yearly rivals for each school and it makes perfect sense. It preserves traditional rivals and creates exciting guaranteed match-ups. In addition, each school would get either FSU or Miami each year for recruiting purposes-

    FSU- GT, Clemson, Miami
    GT- FSU, Clemson, Miami
    Clemson- FSU, GT, Miami
    Miami- FSU, Clemson, GT

    UNC- NC State, Duke, UVA.
    NC State- UNC, Wake Forest, VT
    Duke- UNC, Wake Forest, UVA.
    Wake Forest- NC State, Duke, VT
    UVA- VT, UNC, Duke
    VT- UVA, NC State, Wake Forest

    BC- Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville
    Pitt- BC, Syracuse, Louisville
    Syracuse- BC, Pitt, Louisville
    Louisville- BC, Pitt, Syracuse

  5. Pingback: ACC Winter Meetings Recap- Revisiting the Football Divisional Format and the ACC Title Game | The Confidential

%d bloggers like this: