This thread is in the subtopic of 14 team FB mechanics:
The argument (2nd post) for putting Pitt in the coastal and Syr in the Atlantic is especially worth a read.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
Last edited by ChillinDuke; 11-10-2011 at 05:41 PM. Reason: Clarity
(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.
things to do this weekend:
1) watch duke
2) chip in to iron dukes for the average cost of one cleaning bill for "gatorade stain removal"