ADVERTISEMENT

Another conference schedule proposal

NoKyCard

3500+
Feb 10, 2005
3,602
14
26
Assuming a scheduling model of 8 conference games per season,
3 permanent annual opponents,
and a rotation with all 10 of the other conference teams twice every 4 years,
I've listed a proposed list of permanent opponents for each ACC school

I've also include the following criteria which are intended to preserve long standing traditional rivalries, address some specific scheduling concerns as voiced by some schools, integrate the newest conference members in a way that builds on the existing rich conference tradition rather than fragmenting it, diversify the schedule across geographic regions and historical differences, and include proximity considerations where possible.

Here are the specific criteria:


1. has all the annual rivalries that I've heard are important to the schools and fans (are there any that aren't in this list?)

2. has the North Carolina schools playing 2 other North Carolina schools annually

3. has both northern schools with a permanent opponent in Florida

4. any schools that are permanent opponents have no permanent opponents in common.

5. has every one of the "newer" members (those joining since 2004) permanently matched with a "traditional" school (those in the conference since at least 1991

6. has a reasonable geographical balance for the games not included in the prior criteria

Here's a permanent opponents list that meets all of the above criteria:

Team Oppnt 1 Oppnt 2 Oppnt 3

Boston College Miami Syracuse Clemson
Clemson Florida St Georgia Tech Boston College
Duke N. Carolina Georgia Tech Wake Forest
Florida St Miami Clemson Syracuse
Georgia Tech Duke Clemson VA Tech
Louisville Pittsburgh NC State Miami
Miami Florida St Boston College Louisville
N. Carolina Duke NC State Virginia
NC State N. Carolina Wake Forest Georgia Tech
Pittsburgh Syracuse Louisville Virginia
Syracuse Pittsburgh Boston College Florida St
VA Tech Virginia Louisville Wake Forest
Virginia N. Carolina VA Tech Pittsburgh
Wake Forest NC State Duke VA Tech

(Sorry, I can't figure how to arrange the above in columns. Help anyone?)
 
Last edited:
Yep. You left off two: Clemson/NC State and Miami/Virginia Tech. Those schools would bitch if they lost those games.

Anyone with an idea about scheduling should keep this in mind. Swofford just said this in an interview:

The one thing we do continue to look at is the crossover scheduling in the rotation of teams that you play outside of your division, and whether there's a better way to do that so that our teams that are in separate divisions are playing each other more often beyond the one school that they play every year - the way Florida State plays Miami every year. Because there is a desire to see the other schools more frequently, and that's the goal of those discussions. But there are some rivalry games and traditional games that need to be maintained, such as Florida State and Miami and N.C. State and North Carolina. So we continue to look at that and discuss that for the future, with the assumption at least at this point in time that we would remain with two divisions, and those divisions being as they currently exist. Which as I said, is the preference of the majority of our athletic directors.
https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1758831
 
...with the assumption at least at this point in time that we would remain with two divisions, and those divisions being as they currently exist. Which as I said, is the preference of the majority of our athletic directors.

You can accomplish this and something like what the OP is suggesting if you relax the constraint that divisional teams have to play each of the other teams in that division round robin each year. Of course, that sort of negates the meaning or significance of a "division".

The conference schedules of divisional teams already differ slightly (different crossover and rivalry games). But the schedules would have to differ a little more if your goal is to rotate through non-divisional teams more frequently. There's no magical way to otherwise accomplish that...
 
...with the assumption at least at this point in time that we would remain with two divisions, and those divisions being as they currently exist. Which as I said, is the preference of the majority of our athletic directors.

You can accomplish this and something like what the OP is suggesting if you relax the constraint that divisional teams have to play each of the other teams in that division round robin each year. Of course, that sort of negates the meaning or significance of a "division".

The conference schedules of divisional teams already differ slightly (different crossover and rivalry games). But the schedules would have to differ a little more if your goal is to rotate through non-divisional teams more frequently. There's no magical way to otherwise accomplish that...
 
Yes, this presumes the 3-5-5 non-divisional schedule model, You play 10 teams every other year, so at home once every 4 years, and play 3 permanent opponents every year.
 
Yep. You left off two: Clemson/NC State and Miami/Virginia Tech. Those schools would bitch if they lost those games.

Anyone with an idea about scheduling should keep this in mind. Swofford just said this in an interview:

The one thing we do continue to look at is the crossover scheduling in the rotation of teams that you play outside of your division, and whether there's a better way to do that so that our teams that are in separate divisions are playing each other more often beyond the one school that they play every year - the way Florida State plays Miami every year. Because there is a desire to see the other schools more frequently, and that's the goal of those discussions. But there are some rivalry games and traditional games that need to be maintained, such as Florida State and Miami and N.C. State and North Carolina. So we continue to look at that and discuss that for the future, with the assumption at least at this point in time that we would remain with two divisions, and those divisions being as they currently exist. Which as I said, is the preference of the majority of our athletic directors.
https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1758831
You could also include those 2 rivalries by switching another couple of permanent opponent matchups, I've actually done this in another spreadheet. But but if you did, there would be only 4 available openings among the established teams to match up as permanent opponents with the 6 newest teams. Nor would both northern schools be able to have a permanent Florida opponent.

Nothing inherently wrong with this. However,I would hope that the opportunity to integrate the 6 newest teams into the conference by assigning them at least one permanent opponent from among the 8 established teams would be a goal that would be highly valued by the conference as a whole, as well as the individual members. This would require some 2 of those traditional rivalry schools to be willing to reduce their rivalry to a game every other year to allow the newest teams to become more fully integrated participanst in the rich tradition of the conference.

Since my familiarity with the history of the conference is limited, I have no basis for proposing which 2 schools would or should be the ones to agree to reduce their meetings. I'll leave that to the conference, and the good faith judgement of the member institutions..
 
You could also include those 2 rivalries by switching another couple of permanent opponent matchups, I've actually done this in another spreadheet. But but if you did, there would be only 4 available openings among the established teams to match up as permanent opponents with the 6 newest teams. Nor would both northern schools be able to have a permanent Florida opponent.

Nothing inherently wrong with this. However,I would hope that the opportunity to integrate the 6 newest teams into the conference by assigning them at least one permanent opponent from among the 8 established teams would be a goal that would be highly valued by the conference as a whole, as well as the individual members. This would require some 2 of those traditional rivalry schools to be willing to reduce their rivalry to a game every other year to allow the newest teams to become more fully integrated participanst in the rich tradition of the conference.

Since my familiarity with the history of the conference is limited, I have no basis for proposing which 2 schools would or should be the ones to agree to reduce their meetings. I'll leave that to the conference, and the good faith judgement of the member institutions..

The problem is Swofford just said the AD's don't want to do that. It doesn't really matter if the formulas work, because the schools are against it.
 
The problem is Swofford just said the AD's don't want to do that. It doesn't really matter if the formulas work, because the schools are against it.
Not sure exactly what the "it" is that Mr. Swofford said the AD's don't want, but regardless, its understandable that each school wants to stick to the traditions that are important to them both historically and for their fans' interest.
However, by virtue of the expansion already undertaken by the conference, a transformational change is unavoidable. The question is how to adapt to these changes for the best long term interest of the conference as a whole, which will ultimately be in the best of interest of each member.
I believe that all the members are willing to evaluate how to manage these changes to achieve the best long term outcome for the conference. This may involve re-assessing their current positions on a number of these issues. They may determine that what they say today is in the best long term interest. But if they, as a group, determine that changes from what they each individually want today is the best way to move forward, I have no doubt that they will have the fortitude and willingness to change from what they do or don't want today, to what will result in a better, stronger conference tomorrow, with new and ever as exciting rivialries.
 
  • Keep the divisions the same.
  • Each year, play four teams from your own division and four teams from the opposite division.
  • In your own division, you play two teams ("intra-divisional rivals") every year. The other four teams, you play every other year.
  • In the opposing division, you play one team ("cross-divisional rival") every year. The other six teams, you play every other year.
That gives each team three games against a "rival" every year. The other ten teams in the conference, you play every other year. For me, that's a fair enough way for teams to compete. And you cycle through the teams frequently enough.

Once each of the 14 teams have cycled through the other 13 teams home and away--every four years--the three "rivals" on your schedule can be turned completely over to three different teams. In a long cycle of about 16 years, each team will play everyone else home and away about the same number of times--in 16 years years, you see each team at home 5 times and away 5 times. This would keep teams from lobbying hard to play other teams every year ("permanent rivals"). Keep in mind, you'll play a conference team occasionally in the championship game that you didn't play during the regular season, which would add a little more interest to that game.

Speaking of which, the two teams ranked highest in the National Championship Ranking should play off for the championship. The ACC championship game should be staged at the home stadium of the highest ranked team. Unless the visiting team turns down some of their allotment, each team should receive half of the tickets as they would for a game at a neutral site.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mayoman
Not sure exactly what the "it" is that Mr. Swofford said the AD's don't want, but regardless, its understandable that each school wants to stick to the traditions that are important to them both historically and for their fans' interest.
However, by virtue of the expansion already undertaken by the conference, a transformational change is unavoidable. The question is how to adapt to these changes for the best long term interest of the conference as a whole, which will ultimately be in the best of interest of each member.
I believe that all the members are willing to evaluate how to manage these changes to achieve the best long term outcome for the conference. This may involve re-assessing their current positions on a number of these issues. They may determine that what they say today is in the best long term interest. But if they, as a group, determine that changes from what they each individually want today is the best way to move forward, I have no doubt that they will have the fortitude and willingness to change from what they do or don't want today, to what will result in a better, stronger conference tomorrow, with new and ever as exciting rivialries.

They don't want to change the format. They want to keep the divisions as they are.

It's also not unavoidable. Nobody else is even looking at eliminating the divisions. The Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 aren't looking at it, so there isn't some sort of inevitability about it. The only issue the ACC has been concerned with is some teams not playing each other as much. However, as Swofford clearly said, the majority of the schools want to keep the format the same as it is.
 
NoKy, good job putting this scheduling plan together. It's the second best option I've seen, with the best one being the no division format with each school getting 2 permanent rivals.

Zipp, I agree with your championship game proposal, with a couple of caveats.
1) The host school has to use the visiting locker room and the visiting bench, just to reduce some of the home field edge. It should go without saying, but fireworks and celebratory scoreboard displays should be neutral.
2) Schools with smaller stadiums should have to use an alternate venue to host. I'm looking specifically at Wake Forest and Duke (possibly Syracuse, but they have a dome, so...). Chapel Hill and Raleigh are closeby. (The visiting locker room requirement is waived in this case.)
 
ADVERTISEMENT