(06-16-2021 12:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  If the divisionless really happens, should the four permanent rivals be considered instead of three? Duke doesn’t have to drop GT and NC state doesn’t have to drop Clemson. I remember Statefan at one point suggested the 4-(3-3)-(1-1-1) model.

Here is one example:

UNC - Duke, UVA, NCSU, GT
Duke - UNC, Wake, NCSU, GT
NCSU - UNC, Wake, Duke, Clemson
Wake - Duke, UVA, NCSU, VT
VT - UVa, Miami, Wake, Pitt
UVa - VT, UNC, Wake, Cuse
Clemson - GT, FSU, NCSU, Miami
GT - Clemsom, FSU, Duke, UNC
FSU - Clemson, Miami, GT, Louisville
Miami - FSU, VT, BC, Clemson
Louisville - BC, Pitt, Cuse, FSU
Pitt - BC, Cuse, Louisville, VT
Cuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville, UVa
BC - Louisville, Cuse, Pitt, Miami

Clemson, FSU and Miami really loaded up on tough permanent rivals.

Is that possible? 4 permanent, rotate 6 3-3, and then 3 others once every 3 years?

Fundamental mathematics: however many permanent teams you play, plus your own team, must leave an EVEN number of teams to be rotated if you want everyone to be able to play 8 conference games. For example,

14 teams - 1 (your team) - 3 (annual) = 10, which works for 8 games.

14 teams - 1 (your team) - 4 (annual) = 9, which doesn't work for 8.

(At least, I've never seen anyone demonstrate a way to schedule 8 games across 14 teams with each of them playing 4 annual opponents). I think if you have 4 annual games you MUST play a 9-game schedule. (EDIT: it may also work for 7 games)

(06-16-2021 02:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Fundamental mathematics: however many permanent teams you play, plus your own team, must leave an EVEN number of teams to be rotated if you want everyone to be able to play 8 conference games. For example,

14 teams - 1 (your team) - 3 (annual) = 10, which works for 8 games.

14 teams - 1 (your team) - 4 (annual) = 9, which doesn't work for 8.

(At least, I've never seen anyone demonstrate a way to schedule 8 games across 14 teams with each of them playing 4 annual opponents). I think if you have 4 annual games you MUST play a 9-game schedule. (EDIT: it may also work for 7 games)

With 4 plus 4 you have to rotate through 9 schools or you can play 4 - 3 -1 which is 4 annuals, 6 biannual and 3 that you play every third year. This is a formula for who you do not want to play. This is potentially tough to tease out.

That gets you something like:

Clemson:

NCSU/GT/FSU/WF - annual
VT/UVa
Syr/BC
Miami/UNC
and Louisville, Pitt, and Duke once every three years

NC State:

Clemson/UNC/WF/Duke
VT/UVa
GT/Miami
FSU/Pitt
and Louisville, BC, and Syracuse once every three years

Syracuse:

Pitt/Louisville/BC/Miami
VT/UVa
GT/CU
FSU/WF
and UNC, Duke, NCSU once every three years

etc., etc.

The three you play once every three years are the ones you get the least out of playing either through recruiting footprint, travel and attendance, or other factors such as already making enough appearances in the state of NC.

I could see Clemson’s third being either BC, State, or Wake after their top two, GaTech and FSU.

(06-19-2021 07:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Clemson’s third being either BC, State, or Wake after their top two, GaTech and FSU.

The opinions of some disgruntled fans notwithstanding, I'd be schocked if it wasn't NC State.

"The opinions of some disgruntled fans notwithstanding, I'd be schocked if it wasn't NC State."



My preference would be FSU, GT, and NCSU in terms of rivalries. If we get a 4th, it should be VT. One of the dumbest parts of the divisions is that Clemson and VT only play every 6 years. I have a sentimental attachment to the WF game just because it's been played about 90 times. BC just doesn't have the history yet, but there have been some pretty competitive games with them.

I like the divisions as-is and I have not seen a single alignment proposal that would meaningfully increase our revenues.

(06-20-2021 09:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I like the divisions as-is and I have not seen a single alignment proposal that would meaningfully increase our revenues.

You don't think Pitt fans would be more interested in a game against Florida State or Boston College than they would be a game against Duke?

Or don't you think Louisville and Clemson would bring bigger visiting contingents than, say, UNC or UVA?

A schedule without divisions would make all of those matches which are now once every 6 years increase to once every 2 years.

(06-20-2021 09:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I like the divisions as-is and I have not seen a single alignment proposal that would meaningfully increase our revenues.

Well of course you don't - playing in the weaker division and meeting Clemson and FSU only periodically has to be great. Not to mention the advantage of recruiting in Georgia and Virginia.

Since you joined the conference here are the final AP rankings of teams in each division

Year Coastal Atlantic
13 23 1 and 8
14 8 1, 15 and 24
15 15 2 and 14
16 16 and 20 1, 8, and 21
17 13 and 24 4 and 23
18 None 1 and 15
19 None 2

Everyone in the Coastal loves the Coastal.

Let's go further back

Year Coastal Atlantic
12 None 10 and 11
11 21 22 and 23
10 16 17, 22 and 25
9 10. 13, and 19 24
8 15 and 22 21
7 9 10 and 21
6 19 18 and 20
5 7 and 17 18, 21 and 23

All told since divisions the Coastal has produced 0 top 5 teams, just 4 top 10 teams, and just a total of 7 top 15 teams. The Atlantic has produced 7 top 5 teams, 11 top 10 teams, and 15 top 15 teams.

Yes, everyone in the Coastal lives them some Coastal

(06-20-2021 12:30 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 09:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I like the divisions as-is and I have not seen a single alignment proposal that would meaningfully increase our revenues.

Well of course you don't - playing in the weaker division and meeting Clemson and FSU only periodically has to be great. Not to mention the advantage of recruiting in Georgia and Virginia.

Since you joined the conference here are the final AP rankings of teams in each division

Year Coastal Atlantic
13 23 1 and 8
14 8 1, 15 and 24
15 15 2 and 14
16 16 and 20 1, 8, and 21
17 13 and 24 4 and 23
18 None 1 and 15
19 None 2

Everyone in the Coastal loves the Coastal.

Let's go further back

Year Coastal Atlantic
12 None 10 and 11
11 21 22 and 23
10 16 17, 22 and 25
9 10. 13, and 19 24
8 15 and 22 21
7 9 10 and 21
6 19 18 and 20
5 7 and 17 18, 21 and 23

All told since divisions the Coastal has produced 0 top 5 teams, just 4 top 10 teams, and just a total of 7 top 15 teams. The Atlantic has produced 7 top 5 teams, 11 top 10 teams, and 15 top 15 teams.

Yes, everyone in the Coastal lives them some Coastal

Yeah ... Coastal's run of having all 7 teams win their division in 7 straight years while neat, is a testament to mediocrity -- at best.

But the divisions are going away, and soon.

And conferences will finally be able to set up schedules that have every conference member playing every other conference member - home and away - every four years.

(06-20-2021 07:50 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 12:30 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 09:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I like the divisions as-is and I have not seen a single alignment proposal that would meaningfully increase our revenues.

Well of course you don't - playing in the weaker division and meeting Clemson and FSU only periodically has to be great. Not to mention the advantage of recruiting in Georgia and Virginia.

Since you joined the conference here are the final AP rankings of teams in each division

Year Coastal Atlantic
13 23 1 and 8
14 8 1, 15 and 24
15 15 2 and 14
16 16 and 20 1, 8, and 21
17 13 and 24 4 and 23
18 None 1 and 15
19 None 2

Everyone in the Coastal loves the Coastal.

Let's go further back

Year Coastal Atlantic
12 None 10 and 11
11 21 22 and 23
10 16 17, 22 and 25
9 10. 13, and 19 24
8 15 and 22 21
7 9 10 and 21
6 19 18 and 20
5 7 and 17 18, 21 and 23

All told since divisions the Coastal has produced 0 top 5 teams, just 4 top 10 teams, and just a total of 7 top 15 teams. The Atlantic has produced 7 top 5 teams, 11 top 10 teams, and 15 top 15 teams.

Yes, everyone in the Coastal lives them some Coastal

Yeah ... Coastal's run of having all 7 teams win their division in 7 straight years while neat, is a testament to mediocrity -- at best.

But the divisions are going away, and soon.

And conferences will finally be able to set up schedules that have every conference member playing every other conference member - home and away - every four years.

Hopefully we'll get a lot more appealing games - maybe use one game out of eight to create some made-for-tv match-ups?

Hopefully the new commissioner will not make any deals with ESPN unless it’s to break the current deal in place for a much better deal. The one for the conference currently isn’t paying out in the manner that matches the others conferences, and adding years to the GOR deal really doesn’t do anything as whole for the ACC.

One quick fix IMO is how the ACCNetwork is being produced in comparison to the the SECNetwork. The footprint of the conference over lapses some SEC states and payout isn’t matching out, and if I’m not mistaken the ACC has a much bigger population than the SEC which results in more households.

Again the scheduling of the ACC needs to be fixed in a manner that brings more high profile matchups each week of the football season, and this can be accomplished if divisions are eliminated. The conference needs to start thinking football first for this is what pays out to the conference more so than any other sport even our beloved basketball gurus who would like to say other wise, but football drives the bus. So hopefully Commissioner Phillips over sees a much better scheduling format than what we’ve seen currently. [/u]

(06-21-2021 10:47 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Hopefully the new commissioner will not make any deals with ESPN unless it’s to break the current deal in place for a much better deal. The one for the conference currently isn’t paying out in the manner that matches the others conferences, and adding years to the GOR deal really doesn’t do anything as whole for the ACC.

One quick fix IMO is how the ACCNetwork is being produced in comparison to the the SECNetwork. The footprint of the conference over lapses some SEC states and payout isn’t matching out, and if I’m not mistaken the ACC has a much bigger population than the SEC which results in more households.

Again the scheduling of the ACC needs to be fixed in a manner that brings more high profile matchups each week of the football season, and this can be accomplished if divisions are eliminated. The conference needs to start thinking football first for this is what pays out to the conference more so than any other sport even our beloved basketball gurus who would like to say other wise, but football drives the bus. So hopefully Commissioner Phillips over sees a much better scheduling format than what we’ve seen currently. [/u]

Unfortunately, the commissioner can't wave a magic wand and "go divisionless". This needs to be voted on by all 10 conferences in order for it to happen.

In the past the Big Ten was against this. So they worked to garner support against it.

But now, I think the majority of conferences would prefer to go divisionless. The American, once they jettisoned UConn, had to have a temporary waiver to allow them to proceed as they were, without back filling that loss from their conference. So the AAC would rather do this now (and they were against it previously).

The SEC would also benefit by going divisionless. So I would expect they jump on it too. And if you think the SEC is raking it in now, just wait until they can set up their schedule for TV.

It's just a matter of time for this to happen.

But the only thing that will truly close the revenue gap between the SEC and the ACC is consistently winning on the field, and consistently packing your stadium. Until then, we will always be looking up at the SEC's revenues.

(06-21-2021 12:16 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 10:47 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Hopefully the new commissioner will not make any deals with ESPN unless it’s to break the current deal in place for a much better deal. The one for the conference currently isn’t paying out in the manner that matches the others conferences, and adding years to the GOR deal really doesn’t do anything as whole for the ACC.

One quick fix IMO is how the ACCNetwork is being produced in comparison to the the SECNetwork. The footprint of the conference over lapses some SEC states and payout isn’t matching out, and if I’m not mistaken the ACC has a much bigger population than the SEC which results in more households.

Again the scheduling of the ACC needs to be fixed in a manner that brings more high profile matchups each week of the football season, and this can be accomplished if divisions are eliminated. The conference needs to start thinking football first for this is what pays out to the conference more so than any other sport even our beloved basketball gurus who would like to say other wise, but football drives the bus. So hopefully Commissioner Phillips over sees a much better scheduling format than what we’ve seen currently. [/u]

Unfortunately, the commissioner can't wave a magic wand and "go divisionless". This needs to be voted on by all 10 conferences in order for it to happen.

In the past the Big Ten was against this. So they worked to garner support against it.

But now, I think the majority of conferences would prefer to go divisionless. The American, once they jettisoned UConn, had to have a temporary waiver to allow them to proceed as they were, without back filling that loss from their conference. So the AAC would rather do this now (and they were against it previously).

The SEC would also benefit by going divisionless. So I would expect they jump on it too. And if you think the SEC is raking it in now, just wait until they can set up their schedule for TV.

It's just a matter of time for this to happen.

But the only thing that will truly close the revenue gap between the SEC and the ACC is consistently winning on the field, and consistently packing your stadium. Until then, we will always be looking up at the SEC's revenues.

I never said the Commissioner had the ability to end divisions, but I did say he can over see a better scheduling format that would provide more high profile games each and every week.

Basically I don’t think we could catch the SEC in revenue, but the networks IMO should be getting the same dollar payout per house, and it’s the ACC population being a bigger footprint well I guess I am nit thinking of Texas, but still we should be making more than what it is providing us vs what they are getting.

Hopefully with new leadership we can lessen the gap more than what it is currently for if we don’t we will never be able to compete as equals.

You can create the practical effect of no divisions by flipping a couple of blocks of schools. But you have to have the Coastal schools willing to expose themselves.

(06-21-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You can create the practical effect of no divisions by flipping a couple of blocks of schools. But you have to have the Coastal schools willing to expose themselves.

New pro NCSU divisions

North
-----
BC
Syracuse
UVA
VT
UNC
Duke
NCSU
Wake

South
-----
Pitt
ND
Louisville
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami
Texas

(06-21-2021 06:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You can create the practical effect of no divisions by flipping a couple of blocks of schools. But you have to have the Coastal schools willing to expose themselves.

New pro NCSU divisions

North
-----
BC
Syracuse
UVA
VT
UNC
Duke
NCSU
Wake

South
-----
Pitt
ND
Louisville
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami
Texas

How the hell did we get back to a place were ND and Texas are in the ACC?

(06-21-2021 07:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 06:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You can create the practical effect of no divisions by flipping a couple of blocks of schools. But you have to have the Coastal schools willing to expose themselves.

New pro NCSU divisions

North
-----
BC
Syracuse
UVA
VT
UNC
Duke
NCSU
Wake

South
-----
Pitt
ND
Louisville
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami
Texas

How the hell did we get back to a place were ND and Texas are in the ACC?

?