(08-18-2017 08:32 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 06:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 05:14 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 04:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  While I'm not really a fan of abandoning divisions, doing so would allow for a schedule in which even a school in a conference of 14 could play all the other schools in the conference within two years (and with only an 8-game conference schedule). I was inspired by this article. Basically, for a 14-team conference, each team gets three protected annual matchups and alternates between half of the other ten opponents each year. The author proposes a different scheme for the ACC, adding ND as a full member and having four protected matchups. Here I'm working with the ACC as is and giving them three protected matchups like the Big Ten and SEC. I also changed some of the matchups around in each conference.

ACC
Boston College: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL
Duke: NC State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, Miami-FL
Louisville: Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Miami-FL: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech
NC State: Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
Pittsburgh: Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse
Syracuse: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Boston College, Louisville, Virginia
Wake Forest: Duke, NC State, Syracuse

Big Ten
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana: Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Maryland: Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Rutgers
Minnesota: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern
Rutgers: Maryland, Michigan State, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

SEC
Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas: Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Florida: Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss
Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Ole Miss: LSU, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Ole Miss, Tennessee

I also have one for the Pac-12. The protected matchups were obvious. I suppose they could go with an 8-game schedule, but that means each year a team would play its three rivals and five out of the other eight teams. If they stick with nine games, that works better from a scheduling perspective.

Pac-12
Arizona: Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Arizona State: Arizona, Colorado, Utah
California: Stanford, UCLA, USC
Colorado: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah
Oregon: Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Oregon State: Oregon, Washington, Washington State
Stanford: California, UCLA, USC
UCLA: California, Stanford, USC
USC: California, Stanford, UCLA
Utah: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado
Washington: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State
Washington State: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington

What do you think of the whole scheme? Any matchups I should change?

SU vs VT makes more sense than BC vs VT. I know BC-VT is a "rivalry game," but it's only a rivalry in name. SU-VT has more meaning for a number of reasons.

Syracuse/VT actually makes less sense than BC. I can't imagine what the number of reasons are. VT and Miami would rank in each other's top 3 for sure. Louisville should play Syracuse. Neither VA team would choose them.

What sense does BC make?

VT took SU's ACC spot. SU knocked off VT w/ no time in '98 to win the BIG EAST. VT sniped Vick and killed SU in '01 (?) to win the BE.

VT couldn't win @SU and SU couldn't win @VT, so the all time series is roughly even (w/ SU having a slight edge) w/ both sides missing out on key opportunities.

SU is historically better than BC (and has a winning ACC record vs BC).

SU also has more alumni in the DMV than BC for a variety of reasons.

That beats "we joined at roughly the same time" in my mind at least. I have a hard time seeing VT picking BC over SU, and I have no idea why you think UL and VT are a good fit.

I didn't say playing BC made sense. I said playing Syracuse made less sense. At least with BC you have this forced 12 yr history where they had the miracle comeback in the rain that kept us out of the championship game. We also played them in several ACC championships.

I didn't say UL an VT are a good fit. We shared a conference with them a long time ago and they pushed VT out for money.

You're putting words in my mouth... and you must not have been watching last time SU and VT were in a conference. There was legitimate heat to those games towards the end (I'll find a couple on YouTube for you if you want -- they're electric and fun to watch). There are even a couple Beamer quotes about how much he hated/hates the Carrier Dome. And I'd rank repeated back stabbing, equal records, and some of the most exciting games that were played in the BIG EAST over a "forced" association and several ACC CG's that nobody watched, but to each their own, I guess.

Also, I meant SU vs UL, not UL vs VT. The two schools have next to nothing in common.