16 is very attractive if you go to pods of four, with two pods paired as a division in a given year (or two year cycle). One year EAST/WEST and NORTH/SOUTH are divisions, the next year EAST/NORTH and WEST/SOUTH are the two divisions, etc.

Technically, I don't think you'd need a rule change...you'd still have two-division play, but there's no rule that says the division have to be static every year. You determine the ACC game participants the same way, whoever wins that division.

The beauty of that is that you have your three pod mates and one permanent crossover, so you're only married to four annual opponents. The fact we're married to 7 annual opponents every year in the monkey wrench in the ACC schedule...break that and everything comes together. I just haven't done the math to see exactly how you schedule out of division when your permanent crossover is in your division combo...but I'm sure it could be handled.

We'd see each other more often, get more frequent attractive matchups, etc. The vast majority of the premier games could be protected if you put the pods/permanent opponents right. So we'd get better games, rotate through the teams more quickly, and wouldn't have to be bound to annual recurrences of games with no meaning, like Pitt-UNC, NC St-BC, FSU-Syracuse, etc.

To me, that's a huge enough win that it's worth even less than perfect combo. My number one combo to add, and nothing is even close, is ND and WVU.

But if it guaranteed breaking our seven proscribed opponents down to 3-4, I would take a second-tier add like ND-Navy or even WVU-Cincinnati. It would be addition by subtraction...I wouldn't look at as adding Cincinnati to FSU's schedule, I'd look at as adding VT and GT to the schedule more often. The value of the conference inventory would increase.

(06-01-2017 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 01:01 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Unless a big name is available, I would stay at 14. I haven't seen a 3 division model that I like. The 4x4 model favors a 7 or 9 game schedule. Both of which have issues.

The next option is 4x5 which is a whole other set of issues. That might work if the division was comprised of former B12 members.

As long as ND remains indy, you need a FB only to balance the numbers. That implies Navy - more issues.

Why do you need a FB only? One all sports add brings you to 16 for basketball and 15 for football.

It goes with not liking the 3x5 models. The next option is 4x4 so you either go 16 football and 17 other or add a football only.

I don't much care for the ACC's northern flank. It's nothing personal. It's just geography and cultural differences. I would boot the northern flank entirely in favor of a merger of the ACC with the SEC East (well, mostly the East). I also don't much care for the SEC West. Mostly geography on this one, but some academic complaints too.

So, if I'm King:

Pod 1: UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, ECU
Pod 2: Clemson, USC-E, UGAg, GT, TN

Pod 3: UVA, VT, UK, UofL, Vandy
Pod 4: Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami

It's perfection. There's a nearby in state rival for everybody. When you group pods together (1 & 2 // 3 & 4) the huge majority of games are of interest to at least one fan base, typically both.

FB: Play everybody in your pod (4), three permanent crossovers (3), three rotating opponents (3). There's your 10 games.

BB: Home-and-home round robin against your pod (8), home-and-home against three permanent crossovers (6), one rotating game among the other three pods where you don't rotate out until you've played home-and-home over 2 seasons (3). There's your 17 games.

And because pods are deliberately not grouped by geography but balance, nobody ends up playing nothing but murderer's row ... except maybe in baseball. And that can't be helped. Like 2/3 of this conference is good enough to be ranked in baseball in any given year.

For those who will now inevitably cry over (ECU/WF/Vandy) instead of (TAMU/OM/MSU/LSU/Texas/Alaska-Anchorage/etc) .... it is in the interests of balance as well as total ownership of the footprint.

(06-02-2017 11:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  16 is very attractive if you go to pods of four, with two pods paired as a division in a given year (or two year cycle). One year EAST/WEST and NORTH/SOUTH are divisions, the next year EAST/NORTH and WEST/SOUTH are the two divisions, etc.

Technically, I don't think you'd need a rule change...you'd still have two-division play, but there's no rule that says the division have to be static every year. You determine the ACC game participants the same way, whoever wins that division.

The beauty of that is that you have your three pod mates and one permanent crossover, so you're only married to four annual opponents. The fact we're married to 7 annual opponents every year in the monkey wrench in the ACC schedule...break that and everything comes together. I just haven't done the math to see exactly how you schedule out of division when your permanent crossover is in your division combo...but I'm sure it could be handled.

We'd see each other more often, get more frequent attractive matchups, etc. The vast majority of the premier games could be protected if you put the pods/permanent opponents right. So we'd get better games, rotate through the teams more quickly, and wouldn't have to be bound to annual recurrences of games with no meaning, like Pitt-UNC, NC St-BC, FSU-Syracuse, etc.

To me, that's a huge enough win that it's worth even less than perfect combo. My number one combo to add, and nothing is even close, is ND and WVU.

But if it guaranteed breaking our seven proscribed opponents down to 3-4, I would take a second-tier add like ND-Navy or even WVU-Cincinnati. It would be addition by subtraction...I wouldn't look at as adding Cincinnati to FSU's schedule, I'd look at as adding VT and GT to the schedule more often. The value of the conference inventory would increase.

I think this is the best solution to a 16-team conference. My ideal setup:

FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT
UNC, Duke, NC St, WF
VT, UVA, WVU, L'ville
ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC

It gets a little tricky for the permanent crossovers though, but here's how I'd schedule it:

FSU-ND
VT-Miami
WVU-Pitt
Clemson-NC St
UNC-UVA
WF-BC
GT-Duke
L'ville-Syracuse

It's not a perfect setup and I'm sure some will be unhappy with it, but I think that kind of does a few different things - utilizes geographical common sense for the pods, for the most part tries to preserve existing rivalries, matches up like-minded institutions in crossovers, and would give the ACC great matchups for TV. Even if it's not the perfect scenario for everyone involved, I think there's enough to entice every member.

Yes, there is the scheduling quirk of how to deal with the scenario of playing your crossover "in the division" once every three years, but I think it could be managed.

(06-02-2017 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Pod 1: UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, ECU
Pod 2: Clemson, USC-E, UGAg, GT, TN

Pod 3: UVA, VT, UK, UofL, Vandy
Pod 4: Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami

It's perfection. There's a nearby in state rival for everybody. When you group pods together (1 & 2 // 3 & 4) the huge majority of games are of interest to at least one fan base, typically both.

And because pods are deliberately not grouped by geography but balance, nobody ends up playing nothing but murderer's row ... except maybe in baseball. And that can't be helped. Like 2/3 of this conference is good enough to be ranked in baseball in any given year.

I could get behind this idea too, though I would argue that Pod 4 is definitely a murderer's row.

(06-02-2017 03:29 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  16 is very attractive if you go to pods of four, with two pods paired as a division in a given year (or two year cycle). One year EAST/WEST and NORTH/SOUTH are divisions, the next year EAST/NORTH and WEST/SOUTH are the two divisions, etc.

Technically, I don't think you'd need a rule change...you'd still have two-division play, but there's no rule that says the division have to be static every year. You determine the ACC game participants the same way, whoever wins that division.

The beauty of that is that you have your three pod mates and one permanent crossover, so you're only married to four annual opponents. The fact we're married to 7 annual opponents every year in the monkey wrench in the ACC schedule...break that and everything comes together. I just haven't done the math to see exactly how you schedule out of division when your permanent crossover is in your division combo...but I'm sure it could be handled.

We'd see each other more often, get more frequent attractive matchups, etc. The vast majority of the premier games could be protected if you put the pods/permanent opponents right. So we'd get better games, rotate through the teams more quickly, and wouldn't have to be bound to annual recurrences of games with no meaning, like Pitt-UNC, NC St-BC, FSU-Syracuse, etc.

To me, that's a huge enough win that it's worth even less than perfect combo. My number one combo to add, and nothing is even close, is ND and WVU.

But if it guaranteed breaking our seven proscribed opponents down to 3-4, I would take a second-tier add like ND-Navy or even WVU-Cincinnati. It would be addition by subtraction...I wouldn't look at as adding Cincinnati to FSU's schedule, I'd look at as adding VT and GT to the schedule more often. The value of the conference inventory would increase.

I think this is the best solution to a 16-team conference. My ideal setup:

FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT
UNC, Duke, NC St, WF
VT, UVA, WVU, L'ville
ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC

It gets a little tricky for the permanent crossovers though, but here's how I'd schedule it:

FSU-ND
VT-Miami
WVU-Pitt
Clemson-NC St
UNC-UVA
WF-BC
GT-Duke
L'ville-Syracuse

It's not a perfect setup and I'm sure some will be unhappy with it, but I think that kind of does a few different things - utilizes geographical common sense for the pods, for the most part tries to preserve existing rivalries, matches up like-minded institutions in crossovers, and would give the ACC great matchups for TV. Even if it's not the perfect scenario for everyone involved, I think there's enough to entice every member.

Yes, there is the scheduling quirk of how to deal with the scenario of playing your crossover "in the division" once every three years, but I think it could be managed.

I think this is perfect. I could only see UVA having a gripe with this.

(06-02-2017 03:41 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  I think this is perfect. I could only see UVA having a gripe with this.

I could see that being the case as well. I figured that keeping UVA with VT and their current permanent crossover in Louisville (who they seem to be happy with as an annual opponent), plus ensuring they play UNC every year would be enough to entice them.

At the same time, I'm inclined to say their opinion doesn't matter when it comes to football since they've shown to be so woefully inept the last decade and produced only two winning records.

(06-02-2017 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't much care for the ACC's northern flank. It's nothing personal. It's just geography and cultural differences. I would boot the northern flank entirely in favor of a merger of the ACC with the SEC East (well, mostly the East). I also don't much care for the SEC West. Mostly geography on this one, but some academic complaints too.

So, if I'm King:

Pod 1: UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, ECU
Pod 2: Clemson, USC-E, UGAg, GT, TN

Pod 3: UVA, VT, UK, UofL, Vandy
Pod 4: Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami

It's perfection. There's a nearby in state rival for everybody. When you group pods together (1 & 2 // 3 & 4) the huge majority of games are of interest to at least one fan base, typically both.

FB: Play everybody in your pod (4), three permanent crossovers (3), three rotating opponents (3). There's your 10 games.

BB: Home-and-home round robin against your pod (8), home-and-home against three permanent crossovers (6), one rotating game among the other three pods where you don't rotate out until you've played home-and-home over 2 seasons (3). There's your 17 games.

And because pods are deliberately not grouped by geography but balance, nobody ends up playing nothing but murderer's row ... except maybe in baseball. And that can't be helped. Like 2/3 of this conference is good enough to be ranked in baseball in any given year.

For those who will now inevitably cry over (ECU/WF/Vandy) instead of (TAMU/OM/MSU/LSU/Texas/Alaska-Anchorage/etc) .... it is in the interests of balance as well as total ownership of the footprint.

Sorry GTS you lost me as soon as you included ECU. NEXT!
That is not perfection.
I'm not too excited about State either.
How about UVa, Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech together?

(06-02-2017 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  How about UVa, Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech together?

The GT-UVA thing cooled off quickly after O'Leary left. UNC is an above average interest. Duke is even more so due to more history. But to be perfectly clear here .... all three of those teams are *HUGELY* behind Georgia, Clemson, Auburn, Tennessee, and Florida State (in that order) in fan interest. I mean a huge gaping chasm.

(06-02-2017 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  Sorry GTS you lost me as soon as you included ECU.

I'd rather play ECU than BC, Cuse, UofL. And I understand how getting 70 rolled on you by a G5 might make you a little salty.

In general, I believe adding an extra round of playoffs to the conference championship process should not be a priority. If an extra round is to be added, it should be to the CFP itself by expanding to 8 teams.

However, if an extra round was added to the conference championship, I'd prefer keeping two divisions and adding runners up.

I figure if ND comes into the fold it's their decision on who would be #16, but if not I would jump on West Virginia and Cincinnati. My thinking would be if ND came in they would want Navy brought in so it keeps up with their national appeal when scheduling. Not sure who you could get for I have always wanted to see Tennessee added due to the footprint geographically somewhat appropriate and even more now with Louisville and the state of Kentucky in the ACC layout. Could you imagine say bring in Tennessee and say Vanderbilt that would be an awesome pickup, but will never happen.

Add ND and Texas and call it a day.

For the good of the game & to create a balanced P4 I would do something like this:

PAC adds Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TT, Iowa State & Kansas State

North: Washington, Wash State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Cal

West: USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

East: Texas, Oklahoma, TT, Okl State, Iowa State, Kansas State

SEC adds TCU.

West: A&M, LSU, Arkansas, TCU, Missouri

East: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC, Vanderbilt

South: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

B1G adds Kansas.

West: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

North: Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern

East: Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers

ACC adds ND, WV, Cincinnati & UCONN.

North: ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, BC

South: FSU, Clemson, WV, Miami, NC State, WF

East: VT, NC, Duke, GT, Virginia, UCONN

If I'm ACC commissioner and my presidents are in an expansive mood, the first calls I make to gauge interest are to:

Note Dame (for all-in membership)
Penn State (for membership)
maybe South Carolina (for membership)

ND because of course.
Both of the other two schools are good geographical and cultural fits for the ACC. But as both have good P5 homes, they probably don't feel like moving. Unless ND as all in. That could alter things.

I also call:

Texas (perhaps for ND-type scheduling agreement)

Next calls, as needed, are to:

Cincinnati
Connecticut

Perhaps West Virginia, if the cultural fit issues can be addressed.
I keep an eye on the academies in Annapolis and West Point the whole time, of course, and even on Maryland.

____

If the B12 unravels, Kansas, Oklahoma schools will go to PAC, B1G or SEC, where they make the best sense anyway. There's a chance that a B12 breakup could make moves by Missouri and South Carolina thinkable, opening some down-the-line possibilities for a newly monied ACC. That's something to watch, though it's a low-percentage call this early in the game.

(06-01-2017 09:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  On other threads, the idea was thrown out that some P5 conferences might want to allow more than two divisions and have a four team conference championship tournament instead of the single CCG.

Let's assume for the moment that the NCAA would allow a conference with 15 or more members to do this, provided that all the divisions were the same size, and that every division champion was included in the tournament.

In that scenario, a conference with 15 could have three divisions of 5 teams each, with one wild card. One with 18 could have 6-team divisions with a wild card, and one with 16 could have four divisions of 4 teams with no wild card.

My question to you is, if this rule change were passed (and I realize that's a long shot at best), which option would you choose for the ACC? 15? 16? 18? or stay at 14?

Let's further assume that, regardless of which option the ACC chooses, Notre Dame would elect to remain independent. In that case, who should the ACC invite?

I tried to make 20 teams work and couldn't balance the divisions sufficiently. So I jumped to 24 with the B1G, SEC and PAC12 not expanding.

SEC - Same
Big 10 - Same
Pac 12 - Same
MWC - Same
MAC - Same

ACC - 11 game conference schedule. 5 division, 2 in each other division. 2 tiered conference championship playoff. No permanent cross overs. Basketball - Play everyone in division home and away, 10 games to rotated around remaining 18 schools.

-----
North
-----
Boston College
Connecticut
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
West Virginia

East
-----
Cincinnati
Duke
Louisville
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech

South
-----
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
North Carolina State
Wake Forest

West
-----
Houston
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas



Big 12 - Army Navy game not part of B12 TV package.
-----
East
-----
Army - Football only
Central Florida
Memphis
Navy - Football only
South Florida
Temple

West
-----
Baylor
BYU
Iowa State
SMU
Texas Christian
Texas Tech



AAC
-----
East
-----
Appalachian State
Charlotte
East Carolina
James Madison
Marshall
Old Dominion

West
-----
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
Texas-El Paso
Tulane
Tulsa



CUSA
-----
East
-----
Alabama-Birmingham
Coastal Carolina
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Georgia Southern
Georgia State

West
-----
Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
Texas-San Antonio
Texas State
Western Kentucky



Sunbelt - Adds from FCS
-----
Louisiana Cajuns
Louisiana Warhawks
South Alabama
Troy University

-----------------------------
Ideally, I'd rather go to 16 with ND and Texas, and have a 3-6 scheduling agreement. 3 permanent partners and 6 games to rotate around remaining 12 schools.

(06-10-2017 06:16 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I tried to make 20 teams work and couldn't balance the divisions sufficiently. So I jumped to 24 with the B1G, SEC and PAC12 not expanding.

SEC - Same
Big 10 - Same
Pac 12 - Same
MWC - Same
MAC - Same

ACC - 11 game conference schedule. 5 division, 2 in each other division. 2 tiered conference championship playoff. No permanent cross overs. Basketball - Play everyone in division home and away, 10 games to rotated around remaining 18 schools.

-----
North
-----
Boston College
Connecticut
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
West Virginia

East
-----
Cincinnati
Duke
Louisville
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech

South
-----
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
North Carolina State
Wake Forest

West
-----
Houston
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas



Big 12 - Army Navy game not part of B12 TV package.
-----
East
-----
Army - Football only
Central Florida
Memphis
Navy - Football only
South Florida
Temple

West
-----
Baylor
BYU
Iowa State
SMU
Texas Christian
Texas Tech



AAC
-----
East
-----
Appalachian State
Charlotte
East Carolina
James Madison
Marshall
Old Dominion

West
-----
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
Texas-El Paso
Tulane
Tulsa



CUSA
-----
East
-----
Alabama-Birmingham
Coastal Carolina
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Georgia Southern
Georgia State

West
-----
Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
Texas-San Antonio
Texas State
Western Kentucky



Sunbelt - Adds from FCS
-----
Louisiana Cajuns
Louisiana Warhawks
South Alabama
Troy University

-----------------------------
Ideally, I rather go to 16 with ND and Texas, and have a 3-6 scheduling agreement. 3 permanent partners and 6 games to rotate around remaining 12 schools.

Other than my scenario in post 33, to strengthen the ACC I would add Texas, Oklahoma, ND, Kansas, WV & Cincinnati.

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, WV, Kansas

North: ND, VT, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

South: FSU, Miami, Louisville, NC State, WF

East: Clemson, NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

4 in division, 1 permanent rival & then 1 from each division for an 8 game conference schedule. This would leave plenty of room for Texas, Oklahoma & ND to add OOC rivals while not forcing current members to drop any OOC rivals.

ND - Texas
FSU - Clemson
Pitt - WV
NC - NC State
Duke - WF
VT - Virginia
UL - Cincinnati
Miami - Oklahoma
BC - GT
Syracuse - Kansas

If...

16 teams: Notre Dame, West Virginia

18 teams: Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas

20 teams: Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, UConn

(06-13-2017 02:49 PM)DukeFan Wrote:  If...

16 teams: Notre Dame, West Virginia

18 teams: Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas

20 teams: Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, UConn

Welcome to the board Dukefan! I see you joined over a month ago. Sorry for the late welcome.