The link is to the ACC subreddit. Not sure if you need to be signed up to read. I tried to copy and paste, but it was too long for this format. Anyway, I'd be down for some realignment.
Realignment
Realignment
ACC divisional realignment.
- Thread starter CardX
- Start date
Yes, this is the ACC 3+5 format many advocate. It's much better than what we have now. Though its details would need to be worked out so that some schools wouldn't play pretty weak standard 3.
This would need to be a single division format with the best two teams in a Championship game.
This would need to be a single division format with the best two teams in a Championship game.
The main thing I don’t like about having a single division with a championship game, is why does the second-place team get to go to the CCG? They didn’t win anything. What if they’ve already lost to the first place team? Even if they win, it means the two teams split. Why should they be the champs? What might work well is a “resort” of the divisions each year, based on a 5 year running average of wins, where the total number of wins is made approximately equal. Of course, this means that Clemson would likely get a weaker division, but it would make things more interesting- especially if they went to. 9 conference games.
I'd just like to see a 9 game conference schedule, so that we would see the teams in the other division every three years instead of every six. In order to give back some flexibility in non-conference scheduling to the four ACC teams with SEC rivals (UofL, FSU, GT and Clemson), the conference could change the deal with Notre Dame so that we only play the Irish once every four years instead of once every 2.8 years (14/5).
Since Notre Dame is not a member of the conference, we should not be playing Notre Dame more often than we're playing Miami, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech.
Since Notre Dame is not a member of the conference, we should not be playing Notre Dame more often than we're playing Miami, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech.
Philosophically, I agree. Clemson won't go along with it though. So we are stuck.
Well it's all about money. The ACC isn't going to give up a championship game. I don't like it either. But America long ago chose to allow "nth" place finishers to play in some sort of tournament. But I agree with you. Heck, the NFL allows 40% of its teams another try at winning in the post season. Which I don't like, but advertisers do.
The realignment I described above would look like this:
Division 1
Clem
Pitt
UofL
Duke
GT
BC
Wake
Division 2
Miami
VT
NCSU
UNC
Va
FSU
Cuse
Of course, there are a number of swaps that could be made- UofL for Va, for example.
Division 1
Clem
Pitt
UofL
Duke
GT
BC
Wake
Division 2
Miami
VT
NCSU
UNC
Va
FSU
Cuse
Of course, there are a number of swaps that could be made- UofL for Va, for example.
I think that while you have a committee selecting teams to CFP based on some subjective rankings I actually think it makes sense to do away with divisions. Put top two ranked teams in ACC championship. If they ever go to auto bids got conference champs then go back to a divisional format.
The 0 division format is the way to go. It’s the best way to see all teams in the conference more often and gives the best likelihood for the 2 strongest teams in the CCG. I saw where someone complained that you could end up with a rematch. You could have that problem with the division format. With divisions, you get a 7-5 Pitt team squaring off against a clearly superior Clemson.
For those wanting a 9-game schedule, you must have forgotten that the ACC proposed that a few years ago. Members voted it down, with Clemson, FSU and UofL leading the charge against it.
Yep. No Divisions. Just like MBB and WBB. And conduct a CCG. And if the NCAA ever allows 13 Regular-season FB games, go to a 9-game ACC FB season.
They proposed it a few years ago with the assumption that conference teams would play Notre Dame 5 times every year. A 9-game conference schedule is a non-starter under those conditions, because in the years that FSU, Clemson, GT or UofL play Notre Dame, a 9-game conference schedule limits those four teams to one non-conference game - because two of their non-conference games would be against Notre Dame and their in-state rival.
That's why I recommended that the number of ACC-Notre Dame games be reduced from 5 to 3.5 each year - that way the four schools with in-state rivals have that "problem" only once every 4 years.
Let me know when you find a school that wants to play Notre Dame LESS often.
Ten years ago, when we never played Notre Dame in football at all, I might have agreed with you. In the Big East it was a constant struggle to find 4 good non-conference games to go with the UK game and the 7 conference games. And we’d need a non-conference game against a team with Notre Dame’s reputation to have a legitimate shot at a national championship.
Now, we only need to win the ACC championship with zero or one losses to get to the playoff. Playing Notre Dame might even hurt our chances.
