Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    For football, if everybody is reasonably happy with the current divisions, why not for two pretty even teams both 8-5 last year, just add Syracuse to the diviison with BC and Pitt to the diviison with the VA teams.

    They are only traveling once a week so not sure geography as big a deal as it is on conference partners in Bball with its inherent mid-week travel.
    For football, travel is more of an issue for fans who may travel to away games. I'd prefer geographic regions.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    This thread is in the subtopic of 14 team FB mechanics:

    http://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg...id=996&style=2

    The argument (2nd post) for putting Pitt in the coastal and Syr in the Atlantic is especially worth a read.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Since the conference alignment thread is turning into a divisional discussion, bump.

    You could also have scheduling pods like this:

    South: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson
    NC: Duke, UNC, NCSU, Wake
    Midatlantic: VT, UVa, MD, Pitt
    North: BC, Syr, UConn, ND/Rutgers

    Divisions could be created by pairing pods, with an annual rotation. Call them "Atlantic" and "Coastal". That way, you have a home-and-home againts the teams in you pod every year, and you would have a home-and-home against all the other teams every three years. Throw in some extra preseason and ACC-T matchups, and every team would play each other about once a year, and each team would have a balanced 14-game divisional schedule every year.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ForkFondler View Post
    Since the conference alignment thread is turning into a divisional discussion, bump.

    You could also have scheduling pods like this:

    South: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson
    NC: Duke, UNC, NCSU, Wake
    Midatlantic: VT, UVa, MD, Pitt
    North: BC, Syr, UConn, ND/Rutgers

    Divisions could be created by pairing pods, with an annual rotation. Call them "Atlantic" and "Coastal". That way, you have a home-and-home againts the teams in you pod every year, and you would have a home-and-home against all the other teams every three years. Throw in some extra preseason and ACC-T matchups, and every team would play each other about once a year, and each team would have a balanced 14-game divisional schedule every year.
    I know some people don't like the "pod" system, but if we go to 16 teams, I like a 4 division conference. I like it because you can have a balanced schedule for every team within each division. Inter-division match-ups (home, away) would rotate annually. I'll use the above division names for simplicity.

    1. Play everyone in your division home-and-home. (6 games)
    2. All teams is NC division play all teams in MidA home. (North and South would do the same.) (4 games)
    3. All teams in NC division play all teams in North away. (MidA and South would do the same.) (4 games)
    4. All teams in NC division play the same two teams home and same two teams away from the South. (MidA and North would do the same.) (4 games)
    5. 18 games total. (For the following year reverse all the match-ups.)

    I like the 4 divisions because it intensifies regional rivalries without watering down the ACC brand. I also think it is important that each division would have a balanced schedule with itself.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by 94duke View Post
    I know some people don't like the "pod" system, but if we go to 16 teams, I like a 4 division conference. I like it because you can have a balanced schedule for every team within each division. Inter-division match-ups (home, away) would rotate annually. I'll use the above division names for simplicity.

    1. Play everyone in your division home-and-home. (6 games)
    2. All teams is NC division play all teams in MidA home. (North and South would do the same.) (4 games)
    3. All teams in NC division play all teams in North away. (MidA and South would do the same.) (4 games)
    4. All teams in NC division play the same two teams home and same two teams away from the South. (MidA and North would do the same.) (4 games)
    5. 18 games total. (For the following year reverse all the match-ups.)

    I like the 4 divisions because it intensifies regional rivalries without watering down the ACC brand. I also think it is important that each division would have a balanced schedule with itself.
    Based on K's "vomit" line in regards to the pod system, I would venture to guess that the ACC will not use pods.

    I, for one, agree with K that pods sub-divide the conference too much and don't market the ACC well enough. The days of regional considerations are long gone, for better or for worse, this seems to be the reality of it.

    But back to my main point, I tend to think that K is usually on target with his analyses of these concepts. He also has considerable clout within the ACC decision-making circle, so I would assume that pods are a long shot at this point (unless K softens his stance).

    - Chillin

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    Based on K's "vomit" line in regards to the pod system, I would venture to guess that the ACC will not use pods.

    I, for one, agree with K that pods sub-divide the conference too much and don't market the ACC well enough. The days of regional considerations are long gone, for better or for worse, this seems to be the reality of it.

    But back to my main point, I tend to think that K is usually on target with his analyses of these concepts. He also has considerable clout within the ACC decision-making circle, so I would assume that pods are a long shot at this point (unless K softens his stance).

    - Chillin
    I remember Coach K saying that. He, like many, wanted nothing to do with expansion to 12 teams. Now he wants to expand past 14 to 16. He evaluates, re-evaluates, and changes his mind as necessary. We all do. I'm not saying he will (I agree that he probably won't), but he already has once. The conference may choose to do something he doesn't like, as it already did when it expanded to 12.

    Here's the problem. With 16 teams, a 22-game schedule is too big. You're either not going to have a home-and-home with every team in your division (14 games), or you're not going to play every team in the other division even once (8 games). So the most likely scenario is to not play every team in your division twice. If that's the case, there is no reason to even have divisions. It's no different than what we already have. People seem to think they need to have divisions once we get to 16 teams, but there aren't enough games to accommodate that very well with only two divisions.

    Look at how the NFL does things. Divisions of 4. They are very organized in how they schedule, and they have balance scheduling within each division. It's a good model. We should learn from it.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by 94duke View Post
    The conference may choose to do something he doesn't like, as it already did when it expanded to 12.
    Absolutely possible. I didn't mean to imply K's opinion is the be-all, end-all. But I tend to believe if K believes it, then others probably do. And not all coach's opinions are made equal (8 new ACC coaches in the last 3 years, or whatever it is).

    Quote Originally Posted by 94duke View Post
    Here's the problem. With 16 teams, a 22-game schedule is too big. You're either not going to have a home-and-home with every team in your division (14 games), or you're not going to play every team in the other division even once (8 games). So the most likely scenario is to not play every team in your division twice. If that's the case, there is no reason to even have divisions. It's no different than what we already have. People seem to think they need to have divisions once we get to 16 teams, but there aren't enough games to accommodate that very well with only two divisions.

    Look at how the NFL does things. Divisions of 4. They are very organized in how they schedule, and they have balance scheduling within each division. It's a good model. We should learn from it.
    Fair point. I guess you can call it divisions, pods, quartets, friendship groups, leaders and legends, whatever you want; the numbers are the numbers and they dictate that you can't reasonably play every team every year while still involving balanced 8-team division schedules.

    However, I am in agreement with K in terms of regionalizing the conference is not ideal and you want to get the ACC brand marketed as nationally as possible. Be it pods or whatever, I just don't want to see groupings such as Duke-UNC-Wake-NC State as others have suggested. Too regionalized for my taste (and probably too regionalized for the ACC's business taste...but I'm quite often proved wrong).

    - Chillin
    Last edited by ChillinDuke; 11-10-2011 at 05:41 PM. Reason: Clarity

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    Based on K's "vomit" line in regards to the pod system, I would venture to guess that the ACC will not use pods.

    I, for one, agree with K that pods sub-divide the conference too much and don't market the ACC well enough. The days of regional considerations are long gone, for better or for worse, this seems to be the reality of it.

    But back to my main point, I tend to think that K is usually on target with his analyses of these concepts. He also has considerable clout within the ACC decision-making circle, so I would assume that pods are a long shot at this point (unless K softens his stance).

    - Chillin
    Pods are usually proposed with no divisions -- 3 home and homes, 1 game against every one else. The pod proposal above is with divisions, so you don't play everybody once every year, but you do have home-and-home with everyone in the same pod annually.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by ForkFondler View Post
    Pods are usually proposed with no divisions -- 3 home and homes, 1 game against every one else. The pod proposal above is with divisions, so you don't play everybody once every year, but you do have home-and-home with everyone in the same pod annually.
    I think the question is what's the point of having divisions at all if the play within them is not balanced?
    usa

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    I think the question is what's the point of having divisions at all if the play within them is not balanced?
    It would be balanced. You have home-and-home against everyone in your division every year, but the makeup of the divisions varies from year to year.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by ForkFondler View Post
    It would be balanced. You have home-and-home against everyone in your division every year, but the makeup of the divisions varies from year to year.
    so essentially there is no divisional continuity from year to year. I wouldn't be sold on that from a fan perspective (given i'm not sold on divisions at all....who keeps track of what year duke won the "division".....not me) when you say we won ACC coastal division in 2014.....wait....who was in that division that year? it would make it an even more trivial thing to remember than divisional champions are now. Its a fun bit of trivia knowing who won the division in any given year, but its largely irrelevent. I've been at duke for 4 years and couldn't tell you who won either of the ACC divisions in any years. Some people here might know, but the public at large doesn't really seem to be cognizant of the champion (or perhaps that there even ARE divisions). I just don't see why the ACC should put any effort into bastardizing scheduling mechanics so we can have some arbitrary distinctions that nobody cares about.

    (note this is only applicable to the 16 team case....14 teams i do think 7+12 is a viable option)

    When they come up with the schedule, i believe there will be 2 invariants:

    every team plays everyone else every year: duke and unc would likey be in the same division if there were any, and the teams NOT in that division would throw a fit if they only got duke or UNC in their building every 4th year or so.

    duke and UNC will play twice a year: if they are in the same division, this is a given, and in the no division set, i can't imagine either of the schools (or ESPN for that matter) wanting to lose that.
    usa

Similar Threads

  1. All-ACC: Jon and Kyle 1st team, Nolan 2nd team, Lance defense
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 01:41 PM
  2. AP A-A; Gerald 3rd team; Seth's brother 1st team
    By roywhite in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 04:17 PM
  3. shooting mechanics
    By kinghoops in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 04:21 PM
  4. Do early season losses by a good team actually help a team focus?
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 07:56 PM
  5. Better team on paper: 2003-2004 Duke (final four) or next year's team?
    By houstondukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 07:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •