With 8 game schedule, is ACC going to 0 divisions?

[GoldCard]

With the new decision for an 8 game schedule, does this mean the league will go with a no-division format?

The divisions should be aligned Carolina/Virginia in one and everyone else in the other with no permanent crossover rival, but the problem is everybody wants to travel to Florida every other year. But under the current setup, we will play North Carolina less often over the next 20 years than we did during the last 20. And we are missing out on games with VPI, Miami, and Georgia Tech. That's just absurd.

Surely, we have to be going with the 0 division format where each team has 3 annual rivals, then plays the other 10 schools twice every 4 years. There should be a way to stagger Florida State and Miami so that everyone gets to play one or the other every year.

I love playing Clemson and FSU every year, but I would trade that for more games with Miami, VPI, and Georgia Tech. And we would still get the Noles and Tigers 2/4. (And it's quite possible that one or both would like UofL as their annual rival anyway.)

Please tell me this is in the works!

 

[PushupMan]

No. By NCAA rule, in order to have a championship game, you have to have divisions, with every team playing every other team within the division.

There is not going to be any change to our 8 conference game format. We are still playing Virginia, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, and NC State every year. The 8th game will continiue to be one of UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Pitt.

 

[GoldCard]

That's actually not true, Push-up. There's no rule about divisions.

 

[zipp]

That's actually not true, Push-up. There's no rule about divisions.

While I think that's technically true, the option of NOT having divisions includes playing a full round-robin schedule. Can't do that in the ACC when there are 13 other teams. So with every other conference besides the Big XII, you need divisions if you want a championship game...

 

[Red Rager]

Not trying to be a smart @zz (this time, lol), but won't Notre Dame count as a conference game?

No. By NCAA rule, in order to have a championship game, you have to have divisions, with every team playing every other team within the division.

There is not going to be any change to our 8 conference game format. We are still playing Virginia, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, and NC State every year. The 8th game will continiue to be one of UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Pitt.

 

[PushupMan]

Not trying to be a smart @zz (this time, lol), but won't Notre Dame count as a conference game?

No, they aren't members of the conference for football, so the game with them does not count as a conference game.

 

[PushupMan]

That's actually not true, Push-up. There's no rule about divisions.

Yes, there is. I'm not going to bother to look the specific rule up, but I can easily google an ESPN article that says that within the last year the NCAA agreed to a specific exception to the rule to let the Big XII hold a championship game. The reason for the exception was that the Big XII plays a full round robin schedule, so they are allowed to have a championship game between their top two teams.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14564702/rule-change-allows-big-12-hold-title-game

Since the ACC has 14 teams playing football, divisions are required in order to hold a CCG.

 

[Red Rager]

Thanx.

 

[GoldCard]

No, there isn't.

What you easily found is only an article about the Big XII getting a rule change. Here is a CBS article explaining how as of 2016 conferences can self regulate their conference championship procedures:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ions-to-be-relaxed-by-2016/amp/?client=safari

 

[GoldCard]

Seriously, Push-up. We've discussed it on this board before. Here's another article about the subject, and I love the author's proposed suggestion for team pairings.

UofL gets Miami and VPI!
http://www.southernpigskin.com/acc/a-possible-end-to-divisions/

No. By NCAA rule, in order to have a championship game, you have to have divisions, with every team playing every other team within the division.

There is not going to be any change to our 8 conference game format. We are still playing Virginia, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, and NC State every year. The 8th game will continiue to be one of UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Pitt.

 

[PushupMan]

No, there isn't.

What you easily found is only an article about the Big XII getting a rule change. Here is a CBS article explaining how as of 2016 conferences can self regulate their conference championship procedures:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ions-to-be-relaxed-by-2016/amp/?client=safari

Great article, but out of date. The only part of the rule change that article was discussing that passed was the change that I linked: the Big XII was allowed to host a championship game without divisions because they play a round robin schedule. Everybody else has to have divisions. Well, the PAC-12 wouldn't, but they would have to go to an 11 game round robin schedule in order not to have divisions and still have a conference championship game. So far they haven't decided that they want to play 11 conference games in football.

Think about it ... if divisions were no longer required, then why were about half the schools in the ACC clamoring for a nine game schedule so that they could play the teams in the other division more often? If divisions weren't required, they wouldn't have had to push for nine games - they could just dissolve the divisions and play an 8 game schedule that rotated among all of the other 13 teams. That wasn't an option, because divisions ARE required for the ACC to hold a championship game.

 

[GoldCard]

From the link within the link:

"The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need -- per NCAA rules -- to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game."

The ACC schools who wanted a 9 game schedule were thinking of one thing: MONEY. That was a result of what ESPN was offering for the contract. More games = more money. You'll notice that the measure was vehemently opposed by all members with in-state out-of-conference rivals: GIT, UofL, CU, FSU who got enough other members on board to vote it down.

Also, see the link in my other post. It refers to this measure again. Unless I somehow missed the CCG measure being reversed again after passing, it is now perfectly within NCAA rules to have 0 divisions, 3 divisions, or whatever method they want to use to determine a champion.

 

[PushupMan]

From the link within the link:

"The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need -- per NCAA rules -- to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game."

The ACC schools who wanted a 9 game schedule were thinking of one thing: MONEY. That was a result of what ESPN was offering for the contract. More games = more money. You'll notice that the measure was vehemently opposed by all members with in-state out-of-conference rivals: GIT, UofL, CU, FSU who got enough other members on board to vote it down.

Also, see the link in my other post. It refers to this measure again. Unless I somehow missed the CCG measure being reversed again after passing, it is now perfectly within NCAA rules to have 0 divisions, 3 divisions, or whatever method they want to use to determine a champion.

Key words: "intent" and "theoretically". Means only that these proposals were being considered.

As posted in my original link, the ONLY measure that was approved was that a 10 team conference could have a conference championship game with the top 2 teams playing in the CCG without having divisions, as long as that conference played a complete round robin schedule.

If money was all that mattered, everbody could have agreed on the 8+2 proposal and been done with it. The ACC ends up with the same amount of quality inventory either way (5 ACC home games per year per ACC team against P5 opponents). The key issue for the main proponents of 9+1 was not playing six schools in the other division for six years under 8+1 or 8+2; something that would change to every three years under 9+1.

All of which goes to show you that divisions are definitely mandatory in the ACC, and that the only divisional structure that makes sense to anyone in the ACC is the current one we have.

 

[Rollem Cards]

What you easily found is only an article about the Big XII getting a rule change.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but.......

If there is no rule,....why did the B12 need a rule change?

Just stirring it up a bit

 

[Section 12 Jerk]

I'll play along too.

Help me out GoldCard

From the link within the link:

"The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need -- per NCAA rules -- to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game."

The ACC schools who wanted a 9 game schedule were thinking of one thing: MONEY. That was a result of what ESPN was offering for the contract. More games = more money. You'll notice that the measure was vehemently opposed by all members with in-state out-of-conference rivals: GIT, UofL, CU, FSU who got enough other members on board to vote it down.

Also, see the link in my other post. It refers to this measure again. Unless I somehow missed the CCG measure being reversed again after passing, it is now perfectly within NCAA rules to have 0 divisions, 3 divisions, or whatever method they want to use to determine a champion.

Both your links seem to refer to a proposed measure. Do you have a link showing what passed, and therefore what is current?

 

[GoldCard]

Holy Cow Pie!

I wanted to have a discussion whether people thought it would be likely for the ACC to make this change, and if they liked the idea. Instead, I have to prove what is already established fact?

Since the Big XII already has concrete plans in place, they are the bigger story at this point, but look closely. The articles I already linked refer to how the championship game rules have been deregulated.

"The 14-school ACC wants the option to play without divisions and place its best two teams in its championship game each year. The league might choose not to do this, but would prefer the flexibility."
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/05/16/conference-championship-games-rule-origin

 

[Section 12 Jerk]

Holy Cow Pie!

I wanted to have a discussion whether people thought it would be likely for the ACC to make this change, and if they liked the idea. Instead, I have to prove what is already established fact?

Since the Big XII already has concrete plans in place, they are the bigger story at this point, but look closely. The articles I already linked refer to how the championship game rules have been deregulated.

"The 14-school ACC wants the option to play without divisions and place its best two teams in its championship game each year. The league might choose not to do this, but would prefer the flexibility."
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/05/16/conference-championship-games-rule-origin

Clearly, I'm not following. One of your first posts in this thread said that there is no rule requiring divisions. This link is to an article from 2014. The second paragraph says this:
The page describing which FBS and FCS conferences can stage an exempt championship game does not offer any indication of when or why the NCAA made a rule that requires a league to have at least 12 football teams -- split into two divisions -- in order to play such a game. The origin of the rule matters now because the ACC and Big 12 have submitted legislation that would loosen the requirements for a title game. That legislation will be discussed at the NCAA level in August.

So to me, that article establishes that the rule was in place.

Above, you also posted this article.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-conference-title-game-restrictions-to-be-relaxed-by-2016/amp/?
It starts out with this line:
Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.

Where is it stated that the rule has changed regarding divisions for 12 team leagues? The only thing I've seen above is that teams with less than 12 teams can hold a championship as long as they play a full round robin, per the ESPN article above. All of your links above are about proposed changes?

 

[GoldCard]

Looks like it's not official yet, but I know the ACC has been working on it. Card Chronicle even had an article about it with a chart of how the teams might be paired.

If the ACC and SEC push for it, it will happen. Even under current rules, a conference could in theory use change the divisions each year.

 

[zipp]

Looks like it's not official yet, but I know the ACC has been working on it. Card Chronicle even had an article about it with a chart of how the teams might be paired.

If the ACC and SEC push for it, it will happen. Even under current rules, a conference could in theory use change the divisions each year.

I enjoy the annual games with the conference powers, but I also welcome--as everyone does--the opportunity to play the current Coastal teams more often. If we reorganize, I guess you weight one outcome vs. the other.

With TV contracts driving the bus, I doubt that we will lose too many marquee matchups. Nobody wants that to happen. So bring on the changes...

 

[EasyCard]

No. By NCAA rule, in order to have a championship game, you have to have divisions, with every team playing every other team within the division.

There is not going to be any change to our 8 conference game format. We are still playing Virginia, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, and NC State every year. The 8th game will continiue to be one of UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Pitt.

NCAA 17.10.5.2

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either: (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

 

[Guardman]

NCAA 17.10.5.2

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either: (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

Pretty clear.

 

[PushupMan]

NCAA 17.10.5.2

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either: (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

Correct. My post was a little inaccurate in that I did not specify that the ACC (a 14-team conference) must be divided into two divisions in order to hold a championship game. As has already been mentioned, the Big XII will be allowed to hold a conference championship game with ten teams beginning in 2017, because they play a full round-robin regular season schedule. The PAC-12 could also do it without divisions, but they would have to play an 11 game conference schedule, something they do not want to do. The SEC, Big Ten, and ACC are too big for the round-robin method and can only hold a conference championship by splitting into two divisions.