New schedule article--front page

[dcarp23]

Why would Duke and Carolina have to be in opposite divisions? Is it simply because, as Seth Greenberg worries, they have been too dominant? Not sure why that would make a difference. If they went 1-2 in the conference or 1-2 in a division, they'd be pared on opposite sides of the bracket.

The SEC, for its part, has had tremendous success with divisions with the East being pretty dominant in both major sports.

[Lulu]

Well, let's just add 4 more teams. Then we can have one division of Duke, UNC, NCST, WF, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia, GT and then into the other division we can throw FSU, BC, Miami, VT, plus the new 4.

Or maybe just 2 more teams and put GT in the second batch. Or maybe 6 more and bring FSU over. All fine solutions.

[brsett]

Screw Georgia Tech, and at some level screw Wake Forest. Georgia Tech is newish, and always flirting with the SEC, so they should get dropped in with the new schools. Wake Forest should too as punishment for voting for the expansion.

ACC Tradition Division
--
UNC
Duke
Clemson
Maryland
NCSU
Virginia

ACC Football School Division
--
Wake
BC
Miami
FSU
VT
GT

Clemson will object to the name, but love the classification because they don't actually have to actually play anyone at football they shouldn't beat, and really they are a pretend football school anyway (I've got a degree from there so I can say this with perspective).

[CameronCrazy'11]

I think the argument is that having Duke and UNC in the same division would be unfair to the 4 other teams in that division that had to play both twice per year.

imo, they have to go to at least 18 games. I like the idea of us having a home and home with the 3 other N. Carolina schools each year. We can lose the home and home with Maryland. They'll just have to find another rival.

[geraldsneighbor]

I blame expansion. If it wasn't for that none of this would have been an issue. Nine couldn't have been a more perfect number.

[speedevil2001]

Well, let's just add 4 more teams. Then we can have one division of Duke, UNC, NCST, WF, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia, GT and then into the other division we can throw FSU, BC, Miami, VT, plus the new 4.

Or maybe just 2 more teams and put GT in the second batch. Or maybe 6 more and bring FSU over. All fine solutions.

why not just start a new conference then?

[cspan37421]

I blame expansion. If it wasn't for that none of this would have been an issue. Nine couldn't have been a more perfect number.

Not for a single elimination tournament, it's not. Surely you jest.

Besides, the 9th was Florida State, which clearly belongs in the Football Subdivision conference.

8 is the magic number. Play everyone twice.

[-jk]

I haven't posted my "Premier League" plan recently, so here goes!

Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. Each team plays a double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games), and maybe an extra game or two across divisions (the Duke-UNC rule).

Leads to killer SOS in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups, and the chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

At the end of the season, the top four teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom four teams in Lower stay Lower. The bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower.

The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the the end of the season. No one near the bottom of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last week of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key match ups.

It's that or go to a full 22 game round-robin and eliminate a few Little Sisters of the Poor.

-jk

[msdukie]

I blame expansion. If it wasn't for that none of this would have been an issue. Nine couldn't have been a more perfect number.

EIGHT was a much better number.

[msdukie]

I figured out how this could all work perfectly a few years ago. The fact that the conference can't figure this out on their own and I found it not so difficult just further proves how stupid/incompentent Swofford is (or he is just trying to wreck the conference).

I'm done with my rant. Suffice to say, you have 18 games, 2 divisions, Duke and Carolina HAVE to be in the same division because they have to be able to battle each other for a division title (which will have more merit than a Regular-Season title - which you could dispose of). It's similar to the ACC football divisions (which are also the baseball divisions right now) and you play the other five teams in your division twice, your permanent partners in the other division (NCSU, WFU twice) and the other four teams in your division once (two home, two road, alternates each year).

Your ACC Tournament goes in the exact same format as the SEC with each division seeded 1-6, if you don't do it that way, you preclude the possibility of a same division Duke and Carolina playing for an ACC title (the now real and only one).

Here is how it works in Duke's case - I leave the divisions the same, because it would be better if it were consistent in all sports. Let's change the stupid names thought:

ACC - 18 game schedule (Duke version)

Atlantic (for now): (8 division games v. 6 teams)

BC -play once - alternate home and road each year

Clemson - play once - alternate home and road each year

F$U - play once - alternate home and road each year

Maryland - play once - alternate home and road each year (yeah the only
problem with this plan is right here, but since they are not our rivals and we don't play them regularly in football, I'd give up 2 Maryland games and it would just make them angry - even better :) )

NCSU -permanent parter - play TWICE each year (thank God)

WF - permanent partner - play TWICE each year (see above)


Coastal (for now): (10 division games v. 5 teams)

DUKE

Tech - play twice

Miami - play twice

EVIL- obvious

Virginia - play twice

VPI - play twice

Two division winners crowned ACC Division champion, just like in football; no ACC Regular-Season champion, just like in football (I know the SEC has one and it is their league champion; but we don't have that issue); ACC Tournament winner - ACC Champion - just like in EVERY sport, other than volleyball.

This is how the ACC Tournament would work:

http://www.secsports.com/doc_lib/bkc_2009_bracket.pdf

NOTE: This means when Duke and Carolina finish 1 and 2, just as now, they could not play each other until the ACC title game.

I'd love some feedback on this and maybe we can get this to the ACC office while the are deliberating.

The only way to fix the remaining problems is to de-expand.

[sandinmyshoes]

I think the basic divisions with teams playing within their divisions twice and outside the divisions once makes the most sense.

Seeding the tournament could be problematic if the two best teams were in the same division. I think you would want division standing to count for something and that might work if the second best team from each division were in the same bracket as the best team from the other division. That way it is probable that the two best teams would meet in the championship game regardless of which division they were in.

Traditional rivals like the Big Four could schedule non-conference games with one another if they are in different divisions. If it worked out with 2 in one division and 2 in another, they could possibly bring back a version of the Big Four tournament. A one day Big Four double header in Greensboro or Charlotte, where the teams that only have one conference game go at it. It wouldn't count in the standings, but it could create a profitable event atmosphere.

[cspan37421]

jk's idea with the upper and lower divisions is one I like even more for the major US pro sports, to allow small market/small budget teams to compete against each other, and sure, let the best of them move on to some playoff. I never understand why this does not appeal more in America.

At first I liked it too for the ACC, but I'm not sure whether there would be that much incentive to be in the upper division. Yes, SOS, but they'd all kill each other. Some teams might prefer to take their chances in the lower division, play the upper div teams just once each and do some good out of conference scheduling to be one of the at-large NCAA teams. It seems to me there needs to be a greater incentive to be an upper division team.

The major issue I have is with the league tournament. No team should have to play 4 games in 4 days. Perhaps define an opening round (4 games) as a play-in round and schedule it on, say, the Tuesday before the Friday of the 8-team Tourney. 3 games in 3 days is rough enough.

I would not mind if Duke and Carolina weren't in the same division so long as they could still play a minimum of 2 games against each other every year.

But Eight is Enough.

[Jarhead]

We are,there. Reverting back would be an embarrassing disaster, so forget that. My idea is a simple one. The whole conference plays a round robin. That accounts for 22 games. Conference challenges such as the ACC/Big Televen are good. The ACC should do two or three a year. That would give us 25 games. Then the Conference tournament gives us a potential for 4 more games, three for the seeded teams. Let's go with the three adding up to 28 games. The potential for the remainder of the season would be 6 more getting us to 32 games. The NCAA would allow each team to participate in 2 invitational tournaments with a 6 game potential, getting us to 38 games. These last two would provide for added comparative competition between conferences. Finally add two wild card games for each school for a total of 40. Only a few teams would approach that total, with only two at most reaching it. Is it reasonable? Well Duke played 37 games this year, UNC played 36, Mizzou played 38, and so did Syracuse. Powder puff games now included in schedules are... well, practice games. At best, they are exposure for the lesser team. At worst, embarrassment.

Can it work? Sure. Oh, yeah, conferences with more than 12 teams can handle it any way they want for the regular season and conference tournaments, if they have them. Will it work? No answer, since I can't even imagine it happening. There are too many pot holes to fill, so I'll just remember the round robin season, fondly.

[Newton_14]

I figured out how this could all work perfectly a few years ago. The fact that the conference can't figure this out on their own and I found it not so difficult just further proves how stupid/incompentent Swofford is (or he is just trying to wreck the conference).

I'm done with my rant. Suffice to say, you have 18 games, 2 divisions, Duke and Carolina HAVE to be in the same division because they have to be able to battle each other for a division title (which will have more merit than a Regular-Season title - which you could dispose of). It's similar to the ACC football divisions (which are also the baseball divisions right now) and you play the other five teams in your division twice, your permanent partners in the other division (NCSU, WFU twice) and the other four teams in your division once (two home, two road, alternates each year).

Your ACC Tournament goes in the exact same format as the SEC with each division seeded 1-6, if you don't do it that way, you preclude the possibility of a same division Duke and Carolina playing for an ACC title (the now real and only one).

Here is how it works in Duke's case - I leave the divisions the same, because it would be better if it were consistent in all sports. Let's change the stupid names thought:

ACC - 18 game schedule (Duke version)

Atlantic (for now): (8 division games v. 6 teams)

BC -play once - alternate home and road each year

Clemson - play once - alternate home and road each year

F$U - play once - alternate home and road each year

Maryland - play once - alternate home and road each year (yeah the only
problem with this plan is right here, but since they are not our rivals and we don't play them regularly in football, I'd give up 2 Maryland games and it would just make them angry - even better :) )

NCSU -permanent parter - play TWICE each year (thank God)

WF - permanent partner - play TWICE each year (see above)


Coastal (for now): (10 division games v. 5 teams)

DUKE

Tech - play twice

Miami - play twice

EVIL- obvious

Virginia - play twice

VPI - play twice

Two division winners crowned ACC Division champion, just like in football; no ACC Regular-Season champion, just like in football (I know the SEC has one and it is their league champion; but we don't have that issue); ACC Tournament winner - ACC Champion - just like in EVERY sport, other than volleyball.

This is how the ACC Tournament would work:

http://www.secsports.com/doc_lib/bkc_2009_bracket.pdf

NOTE: This means when Duke and Carolina finish 1 and 2, just as now, they could not play each other until the ACC title game.

I'd love some feedback on this and maybe we can get this to the ACC office while the are deliberating.

The only way to fix the remaining problems is to de-expand.




I actually like your idea the best. I think that would work great.

With 12 teams leading to 22 games, a round-robin is just too many conference games and it would wear teams out. I know G-Man wants the 22 games, but I just think it would be tough, especially on the freshman.

If they stuck with 16 games, I feel there should be 3 groups of 4 teams based on location. Group 1 (BC, Twerps, UVA, VT), Group 2 (Duke, NCSU, Wake, Evils), and Group 3 (Clemson, GT, Miami, FSU). You play each team in your group twice for 6 games, 1 team each from the other 2 groups twice totalling 4 more games, and then 1 game each against the other 6 schools totalling 16 games. The "partners" you play twice from the other 2 groups would rotate.

No matter what they do, the Big 4 schools should play twice every year. It is a disgrace for that not to happen.

Just my two cents...

[ArnieMc]

In the new article (Today, Tuesday), DBR states that 6-team divisions "would presumably require six home-and-home, which would be 12 games locked in." Uh, no, you don't play yourself home-and-home so it would be 10 games playing the other 5 teams in your division home-and-home. Similarly, for a 4-team division, playing the other 3 division teams home-and-home would require 6 games.

[Thurber Whyte]

If the conference goes with divisions, I like the three division idea better than the two. However, I prefer sticking with the present format and just giving each team two more permanent partners so that we can play Wake Forrest and N.C. State home and home each year. I think that is the single most important thing most of us would like to see out of any change in schedule format. I like the idea of a unitary regular season championship and would like to keep it. While 18 games is not a round robin, it is better than the 16 we have now for that purpose.

I am also afraid that, with divisions, particularly three, seeding for the tournament gets less rather than more accurate no matter which system you use. If I had to choose between the integrity of a regular season championship and the integrity of the tournament, I would definitely choose the latter. If you have two divisions, I agree that msdukie’s system is the best. However, if Duke and Carolina do indeed finish as the first and second teams overall, then the number one seed in the other division is the third strongest team at best, but, in theory, gets a better second round matchup than the overall number two. Also, the teams that finish in the middle of the pack would be affected the most. The luck of who a team has in its division would dictate whether it gets a first round bye or not. For instance, in the previous scenario, the team that comes in third in the division with Duke and Carolina might be a strong team and top four overall, but would have to win four games to win the ACC championship.

To me, the only advantage of having divisions is so teams can play fewer rather than more conference games and see some fresh faces each year. A three division conference could mean fourteen games: six home and home games within the division and one each against everyone else. That way Duke could have more marquee matchups against teams outside the conference. The other ACC teams might host Duke and Carolina less frequently, but they could be guaranteed to have one or the other at home each year. If the other teams want more home games against teams that are big draws for fans, then they can give themselves stronger non-conference schedules, something that might be better for the conference anyway. The loss of conference television revenue could be offset by a gain in revenue for each school individually.