You may remember a few years back when the conferences voted for autonomy when it came to how they would hold their CCGs. This was during the same meeting that allowed the Big12 to hold a CCG even after they played a round robin schedule. The ACC proposed conference autonomy and it was unanimously voted against by the other conferences. The BigTen commish had some flimsy rationale, but we all knew that the real reason could be explained by a quote from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock when Kirk requested to the Klingon Captain that he allow Spock to leave, the Klingon says “No”, Kirk ask “Why?”, the Klingon gives the most hateful, petty answer “because YOU wish it!”

So it seems conference autonomy is off the table right now so you have to work around the current rules. So here is the proposal, I have pitched this idea to other people on other sites and by far more were against it than for it because it meant sacrificing the CCG. I’ll try to break this down as best I can:

1 Ditch divisions - each school can have 2-3 permanent conference rivals and can cycle through everybody else much quicker. This will result in better matchups more frequent.

2 Feature ACC rivalry games on CCG weekend - with no ACCCG you could feature ACC rivalry games that would otherwise get less attention on the previous week. Example: UNC-NCSU, UVA-VT, UM-Pitt

3 No chance of an upset - an extra game could potentially hurt more than help, example: 2005 ACCCG FSU upset VT, VT had a chance to play for a national championship.

4 1 less less for a division champ - an extra loss for a division champ could knock them out of contention for a NY6 bowl, example: 2015 UNC picked up a 3rd loss in the conference champ game, could have gotten a NY6 game.

Thoughts?

There seems to be movement from conferences that voted against it in the past, for conferences to be able to go to divisionless alignments, and then pick the two highest ranked for the CCG.

The ACC was for this last time, but the SEC and Big Ten were against it.

The SEC is leaning toward this now, as complaints from schools not being able to play someone in the other division for 14 years get louder.

The American Athletic Conference commish suddenly wants to go divisionless. See the thread on the Conference Realignment board.

To change that rule preventing divisionless conference arrangements, wouldn't take much more than the SEC and AAC to flip from their previous decision.


Then you could have a quicker rotation through the entire conference.
3 permanent football opponents, 5 that rotate home and away, every two years. You get through 14 schools home and away, every 4 years.

(05-29-2019 10:36 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  There seems to be movement from conferences that voted against it in the past, for conferences to be able to go to divisionless alignments, and then pick the two highest ranked for the CCG.

The ACC was for this last time, but the SEC and Big Ten were against it.

The SEC is leaning toward this now, as complaints from schools not being able to play someone in the other division for 14 years get louder.

The American Athletic Conference commish suddenly wants to go divisionless. See the thread on the Conference Realignment board.

To change that rule preventing divisionless conference arrangements, wouldn't take much more than the SEC and AAC to flip from their previous decision.


Then you could have a quicker rotation through the entire conference.
3 permanent football opponents, 5 that rotate home and away, every two years. You get through 14 schools home and away, every 4 years.

Don't forget that after missing the playoffs a couple of years, now all of a sudden the Big Ten likes this idea as well!

TBH, I think the real reason the ACC's proposal failed the first time is because it was too vague. Instead of saying "deregulation" they should've said "eliminate the need to play round robin within divisions". You could keep divisions or scrap them - personally I don't care as long as the scheduling handcuffs are removed.

Maybe now, it was mostly Delaney blocking.

(05-29-2019 10:12 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  You may remember a few years back when the conferences voted for autonomy when it came to how they would hold their CCGs. This was during the same meeting that allowed the Big12 to hold a CCG even after they played a round robin schedule. The ACC proposed conference autonomy and it was unanimously voted against by the other conferences. The BigTen commish had some flimsy rationale, but we all knew that the real reason could be explained by a quote from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock when Kirk requested to the Klingon Captain that he allow Spock to leave, the Klingon says “No”, Kirk ask “Why?”, the Klingon gives the most hateful, petty answer “because YOU wish it!”

So it seems conference autonomy is off the table right now so you have to work around the current rules. So here is the proposal, I have pitched this idea to other people on other sites and by far more were against it than for it because it meant sacrificing the CCG. I’ll try to break this down as best I can:

1 Ditch divisions - each school can have 2-3 permanent conference rivals and can cycle through everybody else much quicker. This will result in better matchups more frequent.

2 Feature ACC rivalry games on CCG weekend - with no ACCCG you could feature ACC rivalry games that would otherwise get less attention on the previous week. Example: UNC-NCSU, UVA-VT, UM-Pitt

3 No chance of an upset - an extra game could potentially hurt more than help, example: 2005 ACCCG FSU upset VT, VT had a chance to play for a national championship.

4 1 less less for a division champ - an extra loss for a division champ could knock them out of contention for a NY6 bowl, example: 2015 UNC picked up a 3rd loss in the conference champ game, could have gotten a NY6 game.

Thoughts?

2015 UNC would have been waxed in a NY6 game. That was a net positive.

(05-29-2019 10:36 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  There seems to be movement from conferences that voted against it in the past, for conferences to be able to go to divisionless alignments, and then pick the two highest ranked for the CCG.

The ACC was for this last time, but the SEC and Big Ten were against it.

The SEC is leaning toward this now, as complaints from schools not being able to play someone in the other division for 14 years get louder.

The American Athletic Conference commish suddenly wants to go divisionless. See the thread on the Conference Realignment board.

To change that rule preventing divisionless conference arrangements, wouldn't take much more than the SEC and AAC to flip from their previous decision.


Then you could have a quicker rotation through the entire conference.
3 permanent football opponents, 5 that rotate home and away, every two years. You get through 14 schools home and away, every 4 years.

It's pretty easy to understand why the SEC likes it. Their divisions are just as out of whack as the ACC divisions. No small part of U[sic]GA's "emergence" has been that they've been freed of the burden of having to play at least one of LSU/Alabama almost every year. They can comfortably go a decade without playing a major SEC West power until the title game now. As long as somebody in the SEC East can rise above the "meh" and be dominant in the division ... they are assured at least a NY6 if not a CFP bid if they just take care of business and avoid the SEC West powers.

(05-29-2019 10:12 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  1 Ditch divisions - each school can have 2-3 permanent conference rivals and can cycle through everybody else much quicker. This will result in better matchups more frequent. Let's start with ditching divisions in baseball...makes zero sense for that sport and accomplishes nothing. As far as FB goes, try figuring out and facilitating who each school's 2-3 permanent conference rivals are going to be while making it equitable from a competitiveness standpoint. I'm OK with ditching divisions in FB if there is some scheduling solution that makes sense. For example, if Miami and GT have to face Clemson and FSU (and vice versa) every year as those 2-3 permanent conference rivals, that is not competitively equitable to the rest of the conference. Bottom line, it isn't as easy as you suggest is my point.

2 Feature ACC rivalry games on CCG weekend - with no ACCCG you could feature ACC rivalry games that would otherwise get less attention on the previous week. Example: UNC-NCSU, UVA-VT, UM-Pitt How much does the ACC make off the ACCCG to be distributed across all 14 FB members? Whatever I'd think the revenue from that outweighs having the few legit inter-conference rivalries that exist in the ACC in that first Saturday of December. i.e., I doubt there will be any surge of folks watching UNC-NCSU a week later than the week before.

3 No chance of an upset - an extra game could potentially hurt more than help, example: 2005 ACCCG FSU upset VT, VT had a chance to play for a national championship. If VPI&SU was any candidate to play for and win a national championship, they would've beaten the Noles. I look at it as a quarterfinal game (at least until the real playoffs are expanded to 8 teams). And, if we have 15 years of ACCCG's and we can find 1 example out of 15, then that "chance" seems kinda low. Hokies should have got the job done if they were deserving of a NC game invite. btw, 2005 saw 12-0 Texas defeat 12-0 Southern Cal for all the marbles...so, VPI&SU wasn't going anyway.

4 1 less less for a division champ - an extra loss for a division champ could knock them out of contention for a NY6 bowl, example: 2015 UNC picked up a 3rd loss in the conference champ game, could have gotten a NY6 game. Only since you asked for our thoughts, TBH I couldn't care less about 90+% of these bowls, including NY6 bowls, so this doesn't matter to me. Perhaps it disallows some revenue to the ACC to be distributed? I dunno. I'd be much more inclined to watch an ACCCG where the victor can be hailed as conference champions than a NY6 bowl. Perhaps just me I admit.

Thoughts? Hey, you asked.

(05-29-2019 12:30 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 10:12 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  1 Ditch divisions - each school can have 2-3 permanent conference rivals and can cycle through everybody else much quicker. This will result in better matchups more frequent. Let's start with ditching divisions in baseball...makes zero sense for that sport and accomplishes nothing. As far as FB goes, try figuring out and facilitating who each school's 2-3 permanent conference rivals are going to be while making it equitable from a competitiveness standpoint. I'm OK with ditching divisions in FB if there is some scheduling solution that makes sense. For example, if Miami and GT have to face Clemson and FSU (and vice versa) every year as those 2-3 permanent conference rivals, that is not competitively equitable to the rest of the conference. Bottom line, it isn't as easy as you suggest is my point.

I think divisionless scheduling is a football-only issue (although basketball is already divisionless with 2 annual rivals, and that works pretty well).

(05-29-2019 12:30 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 10:12 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  2 Feature ACC rivalry games on CCG weekend - with no ACCCG you could feature ACC rivalry games that would otherwise get less attention on the previous week. Example: UNC-NCSU, UVA-VT, UM-Pitt How much does the ACC make off the ACCCG to be distributed across all 14 FB members? Whatever I'd think the revenue from that outweighs having the few legit inter-conference rivalries that exist in the ACC in that first Saturday of December. i.e., I doubt there will be any surge of folks watching UNC-NCSU a week later than the week before.

Garrettabc's suggestion isn't as crazy as it first sounds, for 2 reasons:
1) AFAIK, ESPN does not specifically pay anything extra for the ACC CG, so removing it might not cost a thing (and might even give the ACC an opportunity to "sell it back" at the next look-in!)
2) If the other conferences don't want to play ball, forget 'em! The ONLY reason the ACC schedules with 2 divisions is because the rules for holding a CCG require it... scrap the CCG and do whatever schedule you want! (Then when the rules are finally changed - and they will be - sell the new and improved ACC CG to ESPN)

Divisionless scheduling would allow the QUALITY of the regular season to improve dramatically - and I'm sure ESPN is ok with that!

Not enough games? No problem - make sure every ACC team plays 7 home games and pick up 7 more games (from 91 to 98).

Need to spread them out even more? Either play at Hawaii or play someone who plays at Hawaii in week 0. For instance, FSU @ Boise St next year can be moved to week 0 if desired because BSU plays at Hawaii. That won't give FSU a 13th game, but it would give them an extra BYE week.

And did I mention that you could do all of this for a few years, then sell the ACC CG back to ESPN for more money????

(05-29-2019 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think divisionless scheduling is a football-only issue (although basketball is already divisionless with 2 annual rivals, and that works pretty well).

Just to clarify, I wasn't so much talking about scheduling. I just think the separation into divisions for baseball is stupid. 12 teams make the ACCT. The top seed of the Group A goes to the division winner with the best overall record and the top seed of Group B goes to the other division winner. Then, they set up the groups via seeds for the next 3 thru 12 based on records and tie breakers which divisions have no play in.

I think the ACC was trying to set up some kind of "drama" for an extra race to follow at the end of the season by having divisions, but the reward of winning a division isn't much in baseball.

Off topic and apologies for bringing a comment about baseball into this considering it was about division-less options for football.

(05-29-2019 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:30 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 10:12 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  2 Feature ACC rivalry games on CCG weekend - with no ACCCG you could feature ACC rivalry games that would otherwise get less attention on the previous week. Example: UNC-NCSU, UVA-VT, UM-Pitt How much does the ACC make off the ACCCG to be distributed across all 14 FB members? Whatever I'd think the revenue from that outweighs having the few legit inter-conference rivalries that exist in the ACC in that first Saturday of December. i.e., I doubt there will be any surge of folks watching UNC-NCSU a week later than the week before.

Garrettabc's suggestion isn't as crazy as it first sounds, for 2 reasons:
1) AFAIK, ESPN does not specifically pay anything extra for the ACC CG, so removing it might not cost a thing (and might even give the ACC an opportunity to "sell it back" at the next look-in!)
2) If the other conferences don't want to play ball, forget 'em! The ONLY reason the ACC schedules with 2 divisions is because the rules for holding a CCG require it... scrap the CCG and do whatever schedule you want! (Then when the rules are finally changed - and they will be - sell the new and improved ACC CG to ESPN)

Divisionless scheduling would allow the QUALITY of the regular season to improve dramatically - and I'm sure ESPN is ok with that!

Not enough games? No problem - make sure every ACC team plays 7 home games and pick up 7 more games (from 91 to 98).

Need to spread them out even more? Either play at Hawaii or play someone who plays at Hawaii in week 0. For instance, FSU @ Boise St next year can be moved to week 0 if desired because BSU plays at Hawaii. That won't give FSU a 13th game, but it would give them an extra BYE week.

And did I mention that you could do all of this for a few years, then sell the ACC CG back to ESPN for more money????

That'd be a shrewd move, holding ESPN hostage until they "encourage" the other conference to allow divisionless championship games. Though you've got to think ESPN specifies the CCG as part of the deal.

As long as the ACC has a playoff contender, they would still have a national ratings driver. So, you don't need to bury all the good rivalries on the same December weekend.

Anything that increases the subjectivity of a sport that’s already far, far too subjective and arbitrary is a nonstarter for me.

I don't believe there are any restrictions on realigning divisions so the ACC could realign every year. Although I can't imagine realigning mid-year. The divisional requirement may not allow you to get all of the desired match ups but you could certainly get more than we have now.

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't believe there are any restrictions on realigning divisions so the ACC could realign every year. Although I can't imagine realigning mid-year. The divisional requirement may not allow you to get all of the desired match ups but you could certainly get more than we have now.

This could possibly work. Perhaps also from year to year try to balance the divisions; put the 2 division winners from last season in separate divisions and then go from there.

(06-16-2019 12:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't believe there are any restrictions on realigning divisions so the ACC could realign every year. Although I can't imagine realigning mid-year. The divisional requirement may not allow you to get all of the desired match ups but you could certainly get more than we have now.

This could possibly work. Perhaps also from year to year try to balance the divisions; put the 2 division winners from last season in separate divisions and then go from there.

Hypothetically you could give everyone 3 permanent rivals and mix the divisions up each year, so long as no more than 2 of those 3 are in the other division.