16 Team Mechanics

[ForkFondler]

I'll start out by presenting some options for basketball regular season scheduling. Tourney formats and scheduling for other sports, esp football can go here too.

Regular Season Basketball Options

Option 1: 18 games, 4 pods, No Divisions

a) Teams are placed into groups of four for scheduling purposes.
b) Intrapodal, home-and-away
c) Extrapodal, once a year
d) seed tournament 16 vs 1, etc
e*) In order to create a balanced schedule, use the first intrapodal games for tie-breaking purposes only

*-optional

Podmates will play twice a year, every one else will play each other once a year on average (0,1, and 2) every three years.

Option 2: 18 or 22 games, 2 divisions.

a) Two eight team divisions
b) Intradivisional, home-and-away (14 games)
c) Extradivisional, every other year (18 game schedule) once a year (22 game schedule)
d) seed tournament S1 vs N8, etc
e*) play extradivisional first (start in December, finish in early January)
f*) use extradivisional results for tiebreaking purposes only

*-optional

Within division plays twice a year, other divisions either every other year (18 games) or once a year (22 games)
If the divisions are geographic, this option will involve the least travel.

Option 3: 18 games, 4 pods, 2 divisions

a) Four 4-team pods
b) Pair pods to form divisions, rotate 3 possible permutations annually
c) Intradivisional, home-and-away (14 games)
d) Play team in one other pod once

Podmates will play twice a year, every one else will play each other once a year on average (0,1, and 2) every three years.

[uh_no]

I'll start out by presenting some options for basketball regular season scheduling. Tourney formats and scheduling for other sports, esp football can go here too.

Regular Season Basketball Options

Option 1: 18 games, 4 pods, No Divisions


I don't think we'll see any concept of pods in the basketball leauge. It will likely be 18 games, play everyone once, play 3 teams twice. Certain pairings will be guaranteed 2 games a year: duke/UNC. All other pairings are decided to make the schedules as balanced as possible. Effectively the Big East schedule with a couple required home and aways.

We also don't know, at this point, whether we'll end up at 14 or 16. If its 14, then you can get away with a 19 game schedule of 12 games home and away against your division and 7 against the other.

[94duke]

This is just my opinion, but I think the ACC tourney should be limited to the top 12 finishers in the regular season. Forget the 5-day nightmare that the Big East employs. Keep the 4 day tournament the way it is. It sure will make those last few games of the regular season important!

[uh_no]

This is just my opinion, but I think the ACC tourney should be limited to the top 12 finishers in the regular season. Forget the 5-day nightmare that the Big East employs. Keep the 4 day tournament the way it is. It sure will make those last few games of the regular season important!

With the "equality of members" ideal that permeates the ACC, I'm not sure the existing 12 teams will enjoy effectively being bumped out of the ACC tournament by the newcomers. I would expect a 16 team tournament.

[Acymetric]

With the "equality of members" ideal that permeates the ACC, I'm not sure the existing 12 teams will enjoy effectively being bumped out of the ACC tournament by the newcomers. I would expect a 16 team tournament.

Hey, they won't be bumped out if they win. Gives incentive for about half the pre-change conference to get their [stuff] together with respect to coaching and whatnot.

[Bluedog]

Please option 2C (18 games). I like the idea of splitting the conference in half somewhat so you establish rivalries and continuity. And it cuts down on travel as well potentially, depending how they split it up. It makes it like two "normal size" conferences that merge together at the conference tournament and are forced to have 4 quality "OOC" games a year vs. the other division. So, in the age of the superconference, going to two divisions would actually almost be like the old ACC with a fair round robin home and away schedule. Yes, the four games against the other division aren't fair, but it's as close as we're going to get. The current Big East with its single line of 50 teams (obviously joking) is just overwhelming in my opinion. I'd greatly prefer to be intimately familiar with 7 other teams (if we go to 16) as the expense of the other 8, then only somewhat intrigued by all 15 other teams. 22 games in conference is too many in my opinion. It's nice to have some scheduling flexibility and go OOC for a game or two in the spring. I think those games always make us better to get used to a different style or atmosphere.

[ACCBBallFan]

If for a season or two it is a 14 team conference, hold the six games that first day in two different 3-game venues and then sync up the next couple of days for the quarterfinals and beyond.

Teams 1 and 2 get a bye.

Teams 3-4-5 play teams 12-13-14 in the main venue or on the Wednesday of same site.

Teams 6-11 play in the alternate (hopefully nearby) site that first day, perhaps the home court of one of the top 5 teams, or on Thursday at the same site.

When it becomes a 16 team event, continue the two nearby sites arrangement that first day with four games in each venue and then again assemble the quarters and beyond into a single site.

An alternative would be to have the top half of the bracket in one site and the bottom half in the other, or Wed-Thur:

Teams 1 vs.16, 8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 13 and 5 vs. 12 in one site or Wednesday of the same site.

Teams 2 vs. 15, 7 vs. 10, 3 vs. 14 aand 6 vs. 11 in second site, or play Thursday in same site.

n either event, bring them together for the semi's and finals in main site.

[Indoor66]

If for a season or two it is a 14 team conference, hold the six games that first day in two different 3-game venues and then sync up the next couple of days for the quarterfinals and beyond.

Teams 1 and 2 get a bye.

Teams 3-4-5 play teams 12-13-14 in the main venue or on the Wednesday of same site.

Teams 6-11 play in the alternate (hopefully nearby) site that first day, perhaps the home court of one of the top 5 teams, or on Thursday at the same site.

When it becomes a 16 team event, continue the two nearby sites arrangement that first day with four games in each venue and then again assemble the quarters and beyond into a single site.

An alternative would be to have the top half of the bracket in one site and the bottom half in the other, or Wed-Thur:

Teams 1 vs.16, 8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 13 and 5 vs. 12 in one site or Wednesday of the same site.

Teams 2 vs. 15, 7 vs. 10, 3 vs. 14 aand 6 vs. 11 in second site, or play Thursday in same site.

n either event, bring them together for the semi's and finals in main site.

My head exploded just prior to the last line.

[hurleyfor3]

On the Tuesday of ACC Tournament week, have 14 play at 11 and 13 play at 12. Winners proceed to the unchanged 12-team tournament on Thursday.

[throatybeard]

On the Tuesday of ACC Tournament week, have 14 play at 11 and 13 play at 12. Winners proceed to the unchanged 12-team tournament on Thursday.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[ForkFondler]

On the Tuesday of ACC Tournament week, have 14 play at 11 and 13 play at 12. Winners proceed to the unchanged 12-team tournament on Thursday.

That's a 14-team verision of the 5-day BE tourney format, where some teams have to play 5 games to win. The fact the UConn actually did it last year is so stupendous that it should never be repeated ever again. That is, let's just not go there. I'd muuuch rather have a straight up 4 round 16 team tourney. You would need at least two venues to do it, but that OK. How about Cameron + DD + RBC + GB for the first two rounds, and then GB for the final two? Or, the Meadowlands AND MSG. Comcast + the MCI. Not a problem.

[ForkFondler]

Please option 2C (18 games).

That's my fave too. Basically, there are two eight team leagues that play each other in the conference tournament. If you send Miami north instead of UVa, you would have the old ACC back. (See ya terps)

Option 3 comes in as a close 2nd. The cool thing about that on is it lets everybody rotate through Cameron and the rest of the ACC basketball mecca (aka NC) once every three years. I think they'll love to hate that.

[AluminumDuke]

Option 4?

I'd go with a 4 pod system. I'd have each pod play home and away games against each podmate (6 "intra-pod" games), and then have home games against one pod and road games against another (8 "inter-pod" games). A six year cycle would evenly provide for every possible "inter-pod" match-up.

Each pod would then have a pod with which there would be no "inter-pod" games in a given season. Those pods could be matched up in a pre-season "Pod Challenge" akin to the ACC-Big 10 challenge. These games wouldn't count towards the conference records but would contribute towards seeding the pods in the ACC tournament. Each pod could choose its own 1-4 for pairing purposes in the "Pod Challenge", with 2 home games and 2 away games for each pod. The same pairings could be used the following year with the home and away teams flipped as has been done in the ACC-Big 10 challenge. Alternatively, all the games could be located at one site like a preseason conference pod vs. pod tournament.

The ACC tournament would then be seeded according to the Pod's records against the other pods, including the "Pod Challenge". The top pod would get the 1, 5, 9, and 13 seeds. The next best pod would get the 2, 6, 10, and 14 seeds, etc. No two teams from the same pod would play each other the first day, and upsets would be required for teams from the same pod to play at all.

I know all this sounds awfully complicated, but here are the advantages:
1. Each team within a given pod plays the same regular season schedule.
2. 14 regular season conference games leaves room for plenty of out of conference games.
3. In any given four year period, each team would play home and away against every other team in the conference at least once.
4. The "Pod Challenge" would add some early season excitement and would mean something for seeding purposes in the ACC tournament.
5. Disparities between relative strengths of the 4 pods would be accounted for in seeding of the tournament.
6. Travel expenses could be significantly reduced (a North pod, a "Mountain pod", a North Carolina pod, and a South pod?)

[OldSchool]

2 Divisions, intradivision home + away, extradivision once a year

Original Recipe:
Clemson
Duke
Georgia Tech
Maryland
North Carolina
NC State
Virginia
Wake Forest

Extra Crispy:
Florida State
Miami
Virginia Tech
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
New Team 1
New Team 2

16-team tourney, with first round OR1 vs EC8, etc., being a home game at higher seed's arena on Mon or Tues night.

[ForkFondler]

Option 4?

I'd go with a 4 pod system. I'd have each pod play home and away games against each podmate (6 "intra-pod" games), and then have home games against one pod and road games against another (8 "inter-pod" games). A six year cycle would evenly provide for every possible "inter-pod" match-up.


That's a 14 game variation of option 1, where you only play 2 (instead of 3) of the other pods every year. I don't like it because the schedules can be extremely unbalanced. (BTW, the 22 game option 2 is the only completely balalnaced schedule proposed.)

[devildeac]

My head exploded just prior to the last line.


You mean like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxJi9qGX-ls

[Verga3]

Option 4?

I'd go with a 4 pod system. I'd have each pod play home and away games against each podmate (6 "intra-pod" games), and then have home games against one pod and road games against another (8 "inter-pod" games). A six year cycle would evenly provide for every possible "inter-pod" match-up.

Each pod would then have a pod with which there would be no "inter-pod" games in a given season. Those pods could be matched up in a pre-season "Pod Challenge" akin to the ACC-Big 10 challenge. These games wouldn't count towards the conference records but would contribute towards seeding the pods in the ACC tournament. Each pod could choose its own 1-4 for pairing purposes in the "Pod Challenge", with 2 home games and 2 away games for each pod. The same pairings could be used the following year with the home and away teams flipped as has been done in the ACC-Big 10 challenge. Alternatively, all the games could be located at one site like a preseason conference pod vs. pod tournament.

The ACC tournament would then be seeded according to the Pod's records against the other pods, including the "Pod Challenge". The top pod would get the 1, 5, 9, and 13 seeds. The next best pod would get the 2, 6, 10, and 14 seeds, etc. No two teams from the same pod would play each other the first day, and upsets would be required for teams from the same pod to play at all.

I know all this sounds awfully complicated, but here are the advantages:
1. Each team within a given pod plays the same regular season schedule.
2. 14 regular season conference games leaves room for plenty of out of conference games.
3. In any given four year period, each team would play home and away against every other team in the conference at least once.
4. The "Pod Challenge" would add some early season excitement and would mean something for seeding purposes in the ACC tournament.
5. Disparities between relative strengths of the 4 pods would be accounted for in seeding of the tournament.
6. Travel expenses could be significantly reduced (a North pod, a "Mountain pod", a North Carolina pod, and a South pod?)

Very interesting, AluminumDuke. I like your ideas. Now, how to set the 4 pods? I'll take a shot...work with me on the seedings.

South
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami

Tobacco Road
Duke
NC State
North Carolina
Wake Forest

National
Maryland
Notre Dame or UConn
Virginia
Virginia Tech

North
Boston College
Penn State or Rutgers
Pittsburgh
Syracuse

Open to suggestions...

[ChillinDuke]

Hasn't Coach K explained previously that an 18-game conference schedule is already the max he thinks is reasonable (out-of-conference games are important for various reasons including strength of scheduling, exposure to playing styles, preparation, etc)? I could've sworn he said this after last season in an interview somewhere.

I could certainly be wrong, but in any event, I think we can forget about the 22-game conference schedule. 22 games+4 ACC tourney games = 26 games out of about 34 total games before the NCAAT. Factor in 2-3 cupcakes (warmups/winter break) and a 3-game in-season tourney and perhaps an ACC/B1G Challenge game (if that sticks around) and we're talking only one flexible scheduling game.

If I were a betting man (and I am), I would bet against this option as it seems unreasonable.

- Chillin

[ForkFondler]

Hasn't Coach K explained previously that an 18-game conference schedule is already the max he thinks is reasonable (out-of-conference games are important for various reasons including strength of scheduling, exposure to playing styles, preparation, etc)? I could've sworn he said this after last season in an interview somewhere.

If I were a betting man (and I am), I would bet against this option as it seems unreasonable.

- Chillin

With a a 22 game schedule, you have a November "preseason" and that's about it. The argument for it is that if you are playing a lot of different teams in conference then you don't need to play a lot of teams out of conference. Not my fave, but it is a balanced schedule.

I'm not betting on anything. Someone will make a decision, and it won't be me.

[ChillinDuke]

With a a 22 game schedule, you have a November "preseason" and that's about it. The argument for it is that if you are playing a lot of different teams in conference then you don't need to play a lot of teams out of conference. Not my fave, but it is a balanced schedule.

I follow you. But we don't even play a balanced schedule in a 12-team league. Trying to balance it in a 14- or even 16-teamer seems overly structured.

I understand the benefit(s)/fairness of a truly balanced schedule. But I think it is outweighed by the positives of having senior trips (Singler vs Oregon, Scheyer vs Iowa St.), home-and-home series (St Johns, GTown...sorry to bring up sore memories...but games like that grow a team IMO), big-arena preparation games (like Wash this year in NYC), marketing/exposure games (Butler last year), and just overall flexibility in the schedule.

I still think 22 is unreasonable. But that's just my opinion, and others are free to disagree.

- Chillin

[gep]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

[uh_no]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

and you are satisfied with having a UNC game at cameron every other year? I'm not.

[gep]

and you are satisfied with having a UNC game at cameron every other year? I'm not.

Neither am I, but as I heard discussions on the radio today, we may be in for a whole new reality in college sports. No regions, no traditional rivalries (that go back MANY years), etc. If so, maybe the best is to go-with-the-flow, get the "best" structure for the "current" situation.

Also, another crazy thought. Why couldn't Duke and UNC schedule an "out-of-conference" game each year... that is, other than the 15-game conference schedule.

[uh_no]

Neither am I, but as I heard discussions on the radio today, we may be in for a whole new reality in college sports. No regions, no traditional rivalries (that go back MANY years), etc. If so, maybe the best is to go-with-the-flow, get the "best" structure for the "current" situation.

Also, another crazy thought. Why couldn't Duke and UNC schedule an "out-of-conference" game each year... that is, other than the 15-game conference schedule.

Well, while your statement about no regions may be coming to fruition, the ACC has demonstrated more than other conferences that it cares about maintaining the region and the tradition. Also, just because rivalries are falling apart elsewhere does not mean we have to ruin ours here, or that unnecessarily canning the biggest basketball rivalry is the "best" structure.

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...). The only two possibilities I see are with 14 teams: home and away against your division and single game against the other division, for 6+6+7=19 games or with 14 or 1 teams, single round robin and fill out the schedule with whomever (guaranteeing a "rivalry" game)

[ForkFondler]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

That's a balanced schedule, and a two weekend tournament would be cool. Double elimination sounds like too many games, but you could have losing team play subsequent games for tourney placements (e.g. two teams playing for 15th place in the fourth round).

You could also have some preseason games among conference opponents that don't count in the conference standings (ETA, already suggested, I see).

[AluminumDuke]

That's a 14 game variation of option 1, where you only play 2 (instead of 3) of the other pods every year. I don't like it because the schedules can be extremely unbalanced. (BTW, the 22 game option 2 is the only completely balanced schedule proposed.)

Call it what you want (option 1a instead of 4 if you like), but I wouldn't call it "extremely unbalanced." The teams in each pod have a completely balanced schedule, and differences between the pods' strengths of schedule are addressed by seeding for the tournament in a way that creates pod vs. pod rivalries.

While the 22 game option 2 is completely balanced, I don't think that it is realistic to believe that the coaches would agree to a plan that so severely limits their out of conference schedules.

[sammy3469]

Well, while your statement about no regions may be coming to fruition, the ACC has demonstrated more than other conferences that it cares about maintaining the region and the tradition. Also, just because rivalries are falling apart elsewhere does not mean we have to ruin ours here, or that unnecessarily canning the biggest basketball rivalry is the "best" structure.

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...). The only two possibilities I see are with 14 teams: home and away against your division and single game against the other division, for 6+6+7=19 games or with 14 or 1 teams, single round robin and fill out the schedule with whomever (guaranteeing a "rivalry" game)

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

[uh_no]

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

I'm not sure that teams in the conference would support relinquishing one of their home conference games each year. The ACC is very traditional, and while having an old vs new ACC challenge, it flies in the face of equality among members, creates division in a conference that did not get ripped apart in the last month because it was UNIFIED like the Big East was not.

[Bluedog]

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...).

The ACC only has 16 conference games still, not 18. So, it'd be going from 16 to 15. Still not very likely, though.

[uh_no]

The ACC only has 16 conference games still, not 18. So, it'd be going from 16 to 15. Still not very likely, though.

Sorry, you're correct. I've been a big east guy for too long :) I could imagine staying at 16 and going 13+3 for the scheduling...That's probably K's desire, since he loves scheduling OOC games (st johns, georgetown) in the bye slots.

[UrinalCake]

I'm with Chillin, 22 games would take away too many OOC games. There's already been resistance under the current format to expanding to 18 games, so even with the additional teams I don't foresee anyone wanting to go up to 22. I like option 2 the best, it's the simplest and seems to mimic the SEC. As soon as I hear the word "pod" I think of the NCAA brackets, which are so overly complex that only the most die-hard college basketball fan can understand them.

[gep]

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

Assuming a 15-game season, I've got another crazy ides regarding an "event" that may be attractive? What about a pre-conference ACC "preview" tournament, in early to mid-December. Group the 16 teams into 2 groups, give each group a creative name (not regional, not old/new, etc). Then pair up the teams based on pre-season rankings, prior year standings, or even random drawing out of a hat. Hold it over 2 days, 4 games each, at the same place. One big "event".

[ChillinDuke]

Assuming a 15-game season, I've got another crazy ides regarding an "event" that may be attractive? What about a pre-conference ACC "preview" tournament, in early to mid-December. Group the 16 teams into 2 groups, give each group a creative name (not regional, not old/new, etc). Then pair up the teams based on pre-season rankings, prior year standings, or even random drawing out of a hat. Hold it over 2 days, 4 games each, at the same place. One big "event".

I like the attempt here, and I like the positivity/excitement over the new ACC.

But having an intra-conference "event" or "challenge" is not a smart idea. Pitting ACC teams against each other is exactly what conference play does. It should not warrant it's own 2-day spectacle. The conference season is supposed to be the spectacle, and the increased exposure and teams allow it to be more competitive, farther-reaching, and entertaining (amongst other things).

Bear in mind that the new ACC as it stands (with the addition of 'Cuse and Pitt) will still not be as competitive in basketball as the Big East was last year (while this is an opinion and not a fact, it's not overly debatable). Last year's preseason AP/Coaches' Poll had 4 Big East teams vs 3 ACC teams. The final poll favored the Big East 7 to 2. Yes, the Big East tanked in the NCAAT for the most part. But it's hard to imagine the ACC having more than 5 teams ranked in the Top 25 at any point next season let alone 7 (even if you include 'Cuse and Pitt).

So it seems we are far from such rarefied air to suggest the ACC just playing the ACC because we are the premier show in town. And it's not consistent with where we are as a bball conference at this point in time.

Just trying to keep things in perspective. Not trying to tear you apart, gep, as I like the positivity and want to hear more ideas from people, especially since I think marketing is going to be a big new thing for these conferences ("super-conferences" if/when that happens) to bolster their networks and contracts. I'm excited about the new ACC too, especially from a basketball standpoint. But let the conference battle it out during conference play.

Now, if you want to have the ACC/B1G Challenge, ACC/Pac-12 Battle, ACC/SEC Showdown, ACC/Big-12 ... bring 'em all on!

- Chillin

[ChillinDuke]

And speaking of marketing, I (and I'm probably alone on this one) would like a different scheduling concept for a 16-team ACC.

Play each team once for 15 games. Play a permanent rival again (opposing court) for a 16th game. Then play two additional games against strategically chosen opponents that the ACC chooses.

Hypothetically, for example UNC is supposed to be the cat's meow this year. Let them play us twice + Syr + Pitt this year. It's not balanced. It's not random. It's probably not even reasonable. But it's most likely what the majority of people want to see. It gets the ACC on TV nationwide and tests the best (albeit the best by preseason expectations) teams against each other.

I understand this is a pretty far-out concept and most traditionalists are likely cringing at the idea. But these are new times we live in. TVs and contracts make the decisions. It may be something conferences start to consider: annually tailored matchups to maximize revenues.

Just an idea.

- Chillin

[gep]

And speaking of marketing, I (and I'm probably alone on this one) would like a different scheduling concept for a 16-team ACC.

Play each team once for 15 games. Play a permanent rival again (opposing court) for a 16th game. Then play two additional games against strategically chosen opponents that the ACC chooses.

Hypothetically, for example UNC is supposed to be the cat's meow this year. Let them play us twice + Syr + Pitt this year. It's not balanced. It's not random. It's probably not even reasonable. But it's most likely what the majority of people want to see. It gets the ACC on TV nationwide and tests the best (albeit the best by preseason expectations) teams against each other.

I understand this is a pretty far-out concept and most traditionalists are likely cringing at the idea. But these are new times we live in. TVs and contracts make the decisions. It may be something conferences start to consider: annually tailored matchups to maximize revenues.

Just an idea.

- Chillin

Thanks Chillin... please know that I don't take your comments as "tearing me apart". I just thought that some crazy, "outside of the box" ideas (even if dumb) will at least have some discussion. We are entering new times for college sports. Your idea of a "permanent rival", and 2 "random" opponents each year (as determined by the ACC) is very interesting... a much better way of adding a few more ACC games than a "preview" tournament (which is what that thought was for). Like the ACC/Big10 challenge... the conferences determine who plays who each year probably based in interest, equal competition, etc.

[hurleyfor3]

While we're busy tossing crazy ideas around, why not go to three five-team divisions? (The identity of the 15th team is left as an exercise to the reader.) I recall Conference USA doing this at one point, although I believe with only 12 teams. An 18-game schedule would work quite nicely in such an arrangement.

If we're staying with 14, the obvious arrangement would be to have Classic and Challenger divisions. The Classic division would be the 1970s ACC (or if you wish, the 1980s ACC minus GIT). The Challengers would then be everyone else. This has obvious geographic advantages, preserves most of the rivalries, maintains competitive balance and gives a nod to history.

[awhom111]

The original post asked for other sports besides Basketball and Football, so I put together this little list to show the ACC Sports, current Duke sports, and what the confirmed members bring to the table:



Men's
Sport ACC Duke Pitt Syr Total
Baseball x x x 13
Basketball x x x x 14
Cross Country x x x x 14
Football x x x x 14
Golf x x 11
Indoor T&F x x x x 14
Lacrosse x x x 5
Rowing x n/a
Soccer x x x x 11
Swimming x x x 10
Diving x x x 11
Tennis x x 12
Track&Field x x x x 14
Wrestling x x x 7

Women's
Sport ACC Duke Pitt Syr Total
Basketball x x x x 14
Cross Country x x x x 14
Field Hockey x x x 7
Gymnastics x n/a
Golf x x 9
Ice Hockey x n/a
Indoor T&F x x x x 14
Lacrosse x x x 7
Rowing x x x 7
Soccer x x x x 13
Softball x x x 10
Swimming&Diving x x x 12
Tennis x x x x 13
Track&Field x x x x 14
Volleyball x x x x 14


Adding these two schools already will likely have some effect on the ability to maintain a full round-robin/balanced schedule. The ACC sports besides basketball and football that do not have a balanced schedule are baseball (everyone plays 10 of the 11 teams) and volleyball (everyone plays 9 teams twice and 2 teams once).

A question for the more lacrosse knowledgeable among us... How many games can be played in a short stretch of time? What is the lowest amount of days in which it would be safe to play 3 games? 4? 5?

Also, a kind of wild basketball question for the ACC tournament. What potential facilities could host simultaneous games with building partitioned off into two courts and two seating areas? I assume the Georgia Dome could though it is reserved by the SEC. What would be the acoustic challenges of two games in the building at the same time (making sure that referee whistles aren't heard in the other game, etc.)?

[Son of Jarhead]

Thanks Chillin... please know that I don't take your comments as "tearing me apart". I just thought that some crazy, "outside of the box" ideas (even if dumb) will at least have some discussion. We are entering new times for college sports. Your idea of a "permanent rival", and 2 "random" opponents each year (as determined by the ACC) is very interesting... a much better way of adding a few more ACC games than a "preview" tournament (which is what that thought was for). Like the ACC/Big10 challenge... the conferences determine who plays who each year probably based in interest, equal competition, etc.

Sounds like the old Big Four Tournament that Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake used have, playing games against each other in early season. They ended it, if I recall, because they decided beating on each other an extra time was not in their best interest. Others may remember more details of the Big Four's demise, but in it's day, it was a big deal here on Tobacco Road.

[hurleyfor3]

Also, a kind of wild basketball question for the ACC tournament. What potential facilities could host simultaneous games with building partitioned off into two courts and two seating areas? I assume the Georgia Dome could though it is reserved by the SEC. What would be the acoustic challenges of two games in the building at the same time (making sure that referee whistles aren't heard in the other game, etc.)?

I think you'd be better off holding the other games in a nearby gym. Georgia Dome and Alexander Coliseum. Greensboro and Joel Coliseum. Verizon Center and Cole Field House. Madison Square Garden and the thing they're building in Brooklyn. Make the "lesser" arena general admission and/or sell an "all-day" Thursday ticket that allows one to go back and forth between sites. If desired, let teams play on homecourts if it arises -- this might help ticket sales. The league has indicated it wants to do a better job filling arenas for the Thursday game. Well, here's its chance.

[gep]

Sounds like the old Big Four Tournament that Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake used have, playing games against each other in early season. They ended it, if I recall, because they decided beating on each other an extra time was not in their best interest. Others may remember more details of the Big Four's demise, but in it's day, it was a big deal here on Tobacco Road.

I don't have that ACC history in me, but was the season a true round-robin back then? So, 3 regular season games against the same team, plus the tournament? In this current situation, I think we're talking about a 15-game season with 15 different teams. So, this would provide 2 games each season with the same team, like Duke/unc home/away each year, just like it is now:)

[Verga3]

Sounds like the old Big Four Tournament that Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake used have, playing games against each other in early season. They ended it, if I recall, because they decided beating on each other an extra time was not in their best interest. Others may remember more details of the Big Four's demise, but in it's day, it was a big deal here on Tobacco Road.

No question, BuschDevil. The Big Four was a VERY big deal in those days on Tobacco Road. Greensboro embraced it. With an expanded conference, reviving or creating a new December event with the "new" ACC is a great idea. In Greensboro, you could rotate two of the old Big Four teams each year along with two others each year. Maybe create a formula based on the prior year's regular season and/or ACC Tourney performance as the selection criteria. "People will come, people will most definitely come."

[94duke]

If we go to 16 teams in the ACC, we could cut one conference game and play all teams once. Only once.
There should be no more complaining about an unbalanced schedule. Everyone would play everyone every year.
Schools could then have room in their schedule for another big-time non-conference foe.

[ChillinDuke]

If we go to 16 teams in the ACC, we could cut one conference game and play all teams once. Only once.
There should be no more complaining about an unbalanced schedule. Everyone would play everyone every year.
Schools could then have room in their schedule for another big-time non-conference foe.

Yes, we could. But we won't.

Try telling ESPN that they will only get one Duke/UNC game or one Pitt/Syr game when they are used to more.

As has been explained ad nauseum, this entire expansion thing is about TV contracts and money. Schedule balance, geography, and rivalries all play second fiddle.

Multiple big-name matchups per year > balanced schedule.

[ACCBBallFan]

Something like this would allow each team in 14 team conference to play everyone at least once plus accomodate primary rivalries.

Clemson and Wake schedule would be the most variable (see bottom).

Six teams people have 3 rivals and five teams have two rivals plus one of Clemson/Wake:

Syr: BC, Pitt- UVA
Pitt: BC-Syr-FSU
BC: Syr-Pitt-MD
UVA: VA T- MD- Syr
MD: UVA-VA T- BC
FSU: Miami-GA T-Pitt

UNC: Duke-NC-St - (Clemson/WF)
Duke-UNC-NC St- (WF/Clemson)
NC St: UNC-Duke-(Clemson-WF)

VA T: UVA-MD- (WF/Clemson)
GA T: FSU-Miami-(Clemson-WF)

Clemson: (UNC/Duke) - (NC St- VA T) - (GA T-Wake)
Wake: (Duke/UNC) - (VA Tech-NC St) - (GA T- Clemson)

So Clemson and Wake alternate among each other plus the 5 who have two primary rivals.

If NC State complains about always having to play both UNC and Duke, they could be made variable like Clemson and NC St:

UNC plays Duke and two of (NC St-Wake-Clemson) so every third year one of these 3 plays neither UNC/Duke twice
Duke plays UNC and two of (Wake-Clemson-NC St) so every third year one of these 3 plays neither UNC/Duke twice

VA T: UVA - MD - (Wake/Clemson/NC St) so every third year one of these 3 plays neither VA T/GA T twice
GA T: FSU - Miami - (NC St-Clemson/Wake) so every third year one of these 3 plays neither VA T/GA T twice

NC St plays 3 of (UNC-Duke-Wake-Clemson-VA T-GA T) and every 3 years neither of UNC/Duke twice, same for (VA T/GA T) and same for Clemson/Wake
Clemson plays 3 of (Duke-UNC-Wake-NC St-VA T-GA T) and every 3 years neither of Duke/UNC twice, same for (VA T/GA T) and same for NC St/Wake
Wake plays 3 of (Duke-UNC-NC St-Clemson-VA T-GAT) and every 3 years neithe rof UNC/Duke twice, same for (VA T/GA T) and same for NC St/Clemson.

One flaw in this is that the 8 teams never play UNC or Duke home and Home: Syracuse - Pitt - MD - FSU - UVA - BC - VA T - GA T, another way of saying they always play each other twice and alternate 2 of (NC St- Wake-Clemson) or always NC St twice and alternate (Wake/Clemson).

To accomodate playing any of these other 7 twice gets a lot more complicated and detracts from games between in state NC teams.

[ACCBBallFan]

I inadvertently left off Miami:

Miami: FSU -GA T - (Wake-Clemson-NC St)
VA T - UVA - MD - (Wake-Clemson-NC St)
GA T - FSU-Miami - (wake-Clemson-NC St)

Perhaps to limit all the permutations: NC St, Wake and Clemson could alternate these 3 year combinations:
(UNC-Duke-neither/both) and (Miami-VA T- GAT) and (one, one, both/neither of NC St-Wake-Clemson)

I am confident something will get screwed up along the way, but luckily league will not stay at 14 very long.

Until we know whether Pitt and Syracuse will be held to 27 month max, or have an earlier buyout and whether others will be added/lost, no sense worrying about it any further.

[A-Tex Devil]

Probably ought to change the thread title since we'll be 14 next year.

But anyway, posted this on the realignment thread, but more appropriate here. The concept is a zipper division wherein you split up the "rivals". It doesn't work as seamlessly as the Pac 14 with OU and OSU would have, so maybe we need to switch some of the rivals, but this works for an easy nine game schedule in football. Whaddayathink?

Right zipper:
1. Syracuse
2. Maryland
3. Virginia
4. Duke
5. Wake
6. Georgia Tech
7. Miami

Left zipper:
1. Pitt
2. BC
3. Virginia Tech
4. UNC
5. NC State
6. Clemson
7. Florida St.

Football: Each team plays 6 in its division plus its zipper rival (pair the numbers in each group) and 2 other teams each year. Voila!

For basketball, it doesn't work without a 20 game schedule which I imagine is off the table. Although how is it different from a 19 game schedule which is what would be required to balance the schedules as much as possible and have everyone play each other? So yeah. I want this for b-ball too!

Edited to swap NC State and Wake. NC State has to play UNC each year.

[uh_no]

Probably ought to change the thread title since we'll be 14 next year.


We still don't know when we will be 14. Seeing as the original buyout was 27 months, there is still a fighting change that we will not see them in the conference next year (in what would be closer to 10 months).

[A-Tex Devil]

We still don't know when we will be 14. Seeing as the original buyout was 27 months, there is still a fighting change that we will not see them in the conference next year (in what would be closer to 10 months).

That will all get negotiated out. There is nothing worse than a lame duck team. Colorado was supposed to be in the Big XII one more year this year, but it just didn't make sense for anyone involved. I could see a one year delay, but Pitt and 'Cuse will be here in 2013 unless there is another conferapocarealignmageddon between now and then.

If things stay the same, though, it will be in the best interests of the Big East to move on as well and reshape itself into something major college football will let past the velvet rope.

We'll see.

[ForkFondler]

We still don't know when we will be 14. Seeing as the original buyout was 27 months, there is still a fighting chance that we will not see them in the conference next year (in what would be closer to 10 months).

sources-big-east-members-want-pitt-syracuse-gone-soon (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-09-22/sources-big-east-members-want-pitt-syracuse-gone-soon)

[uh_no]

That will all get negotiated out. There is nothing worse than a lame duck team. Colorado was supposed to be in the Big XII one more year this year, but it just didn't make sense for anyone involved. I could see a one year delay, but Pitt and 'Cuse will be here in 2013 unless there is another conferapocarealignmageddon between now and then.

If things stay the same, though, it will be in the best interests of the Big East to move on as well and reshape itself into something major college football will let past the velvet rope.

We'll see.

You're right, its highly likely.. I think my point is that with the remaining big east members wanting to milk this for all the money its worth might push negotiations such that a deal doesn't get done quick enough for them to join next year.

[A-Tex Devil]

You're right, its highly likely.. I think my point is that with the remaining big east members wanting to milk this for all the money its worth might push negotiations such that a deal doesn't get done quick enough for them to join next year.

To Fork Fondler's point and link, CU was going to stick around an extra year because they didn't want to pay the exit fee. The Big XII paid them less so they would leave sooner. I think that will happen here.

[uh_no]

To Fork Fondler's point and link, CU was going to stick around an extra year because they didn't want to pay the exit fee. The Big XII paid them less so they would leave sooner. I think that will happen here.

The difference is that CU is sort of a fringe member of either conference (not the top dog for sure) whereas syracuse and pitt were in the big east. I don't think the smaller schools in the big east will be willing to let them off the hook as easily. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that some of the factors that may have come into play with the CU situation are much different than the current one.

[ChillinDuke]

Oh, what the hell. Figured I'd give it a stab in terms of a scheduling idea.

The core of my concept allows each team to have two permanent partners. I'm not savvy enough to know exactly who each team's main foe is, but I figure at least these four pairings would hold true:

Duke - UNC
UVA - Va Tech
Miami - FSU
Syr - Pitt

(Others please help me out here if I'm missing any big-name pairings.)

So what you do is you draw a line between each school. Then you continue the line to that schools other pairing. So UNC - Duke - (say) Maryland. I know, "they aren't our rival." Well for the purposes of this discussion, they are. So, Duke's permanent two are UNC and MD. MD goes to BC (so they are paired with Duke and BC. BC goes to Syr (MD + Syr). Etc... The line must end in a complete circle. There can't be two separate circles.

Once you're done with your own version, you split the 14 teams into two halves with each team being on the opposing side of its two permanent partners. I have:

ACC Yin
Duke
NC State
Clemson
Miami
VA Tech
BC
Pitt

ACC Yang
UNC
Wake
FSU
GA Tech
UVA
Syr
MD

So those are the football divisions above:
You play everyone in your division (Yin or Yang). That's six games. Plus your two permanent partners makes eight games.

For basketball, just make it one whole division:
You play everyone once for 13 games. Plus your two permanent partners again. Plus three more games that rotate every year. 13+2+3=18 conference games.
Disclaimer: It's obviously not balanced. At all. And it doesn't even make for a clean rotation of teams every few years. But it keeps main rivals twice a year.

To me, this saves rivalries in both football and basketball (which is probably one of the main marketing points for a conference TV-wise). It allows for three conference games worth of flexibility in basketball for whatever the ACC deems optimal in terms of scheduling going forward. They can rotate annually in a true rotation (different teams each year). They can schedule to cater to TV matchups. They can even dream up something more exotic. And it allows for only 8 and 18 total conference games in football and basketball, respectively, which gives coaches the ability to customize their schedule appropriately.

That's just my attempt. Feel free tweak it or dump it by the wayside.

If we go to 16, I assume things get simpler, but I don't even want to start thinking about that until those wheels start turning again.

- Chillin

[ForkFondler]

The difference is that CU is sort of a fringe member of either conference (not the top dog for sure) whereas syracuse and pitt were in the big east. I don't think the smaller schools in the big east will be willing to let them off the hook as easily. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that some of the factors that may have come into play with the CU situation are much different than the current one.

Read that link. The schools want Pitt and Syr gone the most are the BB schools. They are quite happy to let them go because Big East basketball will be fine without them. What a crazy league.

[throatybeard]

Oh, what the hell. Figured I'd give it a stab in terms of a scheduling idea.

The core of my concept allows each team to have two permanent partners. I'm not savvy enough to know exactly who each team's main foe is, but I figure at least these four pairings would hold true:

Duke - UNC
UVA - Va Tech
Miami - FSU
Syr - Pitt

(Others please help me out here if I'm missing any big-name pairings.)

So what you do is you draw a line between each school. Then you continue the line to that schools other pairing. So UNC - Duke - (say) Maryland. I know, "they aren't our rival." Well for the purposes of this discussion, they are. So, Duke's permanent two are UNC and MD. MD goes to BC (so they are paired with Duke and BC. BC goes to Syr (MD + Syr). Etc... The line must end in a complete circle. There can't be two separate circles.

Once you're done with your own version, you split the 14 teams into two halves with each team being on the opposing side of its two permanent partners. I have:

ACC Yin
Duke
NC State
Clemson
Miami
VA Tech
BC
Pitt

ACC Yang
UNC
Wake
FSU
GA Tech
UVA
Syr
MD

So those are the football divisions above:
You play everyone in your division (Yin or Yang). That's six games. Plus your two permanent partners makes eight games.

For basketball, just make it one whole division:
You play everyone once for 13 games. Plus your two permanent partners again. Plus three more games that rotate every year. 13+2+3=18 conference games.
Disclaimer: It's obviously not balanced. At all. And it doesn't even make for a clean rotation of teams every few years. But it keeps main rivals twice a year.

To me, this saves rivalries in both football and basketball (which is probably one of the main marketing points for a conference TV-wise). It allows for three conference games worth of flexibility in basketball for whatever the ACC deems optimal in terms of scheduling going forward. They can rotate annually in a true rotation (different teams each year). They can schedule to cater to TV matchups. They can even dream up something more exotic. And it allows for only 8 and 18 total conference games in football and basketball, respectively, which gives coaches the ability to customize their schedule appropriately.

That's just my attempt. Feel free tweak it or dump it by the wayside.

If we go to 16, I assume things get simpler, but I don't even want to start thinking about that until those wheels start turning again.

- Chillin

That's pretty sweet with the Yin and Yang, but I think mine with the Swof and Ford is funnier. No offense. :D

[ACCBBallFan]

Here's the TV type of 14 team schedule - Play the other 13 once plus these 3 Home and Home:

The 4 top teams play each of the other 3 twice

UNC: Syr - Duke - Pitt
Syr: UNC-Duke-Pitt
Duke: UNC-Syr- Pitt
Pitt: UNC-Syr-Duke

Then you eliminate the ones nobody but the schools involved want to watch by having the 4 bottom teams play each of the other 3 twice:

MD: GA T- Wake-BC
GA T: MD- Wake - BC
Wake - MD - GA T- BC
BC: MD-GA T- Wake

FSU always plays Miami twice and alternates (UVA/NC St one year) and (VA T/Clemson the second year)
Miami always plays FSU twice and alternates (VA T/Clemson one year) and( UVA/NC St the second year)

UVA always plays VA Tech twice and alternates (FSU/Clemson one year) and (Miami/NC St the second year)
VA Tech always plays UVA twice and alternates (Miami/NC St one year) and (FSU/Clemson the seocnd year)

Clemson always plays NC St twice and alternates (Maimi/UVA one year) and (FSU/VA Tech the second year)
NC St always plays Clemson twice and alternates (FSU/VA Tech one year) and (Miami/UVA the second year)

The next year you can either keep the same top 4 and bottom 4 and follow the second year alternates in middle 6 or re-seed the top 4 and bottom 4 and pair up the middle six each with one partner and 2 of the 4 one year and the other2 of the 4 two second year.

Strength of ACC 14 unbalanced schedule:

39 - Pitt (4)
38 - Duke (3)
37 - Syr (2)
36 - UNC (1)

22 - FSU (5)
23 - Miami (6)

22 - UVA (7)
23 - VA Tech (8)

22 - Clemson (9)
23 - NC St (10)

9 - BC (14)
8 - Wake (13)
7 - GA Tech (12)
6 - MD (11)

So 5th seed FSU and 6th seed Miami have a chance to knock out one of the top 4 if they can sweep their group for 6 wins plus beat the bottom 3 and 1 top for 10.
11th seed Miami and 12th seed GA Tech have a chance to climb into the middle 6 if they can sweep their group for 6 plus beat win 2 of 6 from the middle group for 8.

If somebody in the middle group gets swept the conceivably might just have 3 wins versus the bottom group and get demoted there.
If somebody in the top group gets swept, even if they win all of the other games which is unlikely the end up with 9 wins.

Of course things change every year with graduations, recruits, coaching changes, etc.

[ForkFondler]

Andy Katz column:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7003689/if-acc-divides-north-carolina-school-get-squeezed-college-basketball

[ChillinDuke]

Here's the TV type of 14 team schedule - Play the other 13 once plus these 3 Home and Home:

The 4 top teams play each of the other 3 twice

UNC: Syr - Duke - Pitt
Syr: UNC-Duke-Pitt
Duke: UNC-Syr- Pitt
Pitt: UNC-Syr-Duke

Then you eliminate the ones nobody but the schools involved want to watch by having the 4 bottom teams play each of the other 3 twice:

MD: GA T- Wake-BC
GA T: MD- Wake - BC
Wake - MD - GA T- BC
BC: MD-GA T- Wake

FSU always plays Miami twice and alternates (UVA/NC St one year) and (VA T/Clemson the second year)
Miami always plays FSU twice and alternates (VA T/Clemson one year) and( UVA/NC St the second year)

UVA always plays VA Tech twice and alternates (FSU/Clemson one year) and (Miami/NC St the second year)
VA Tech always plays UVA twice and alternates (Miami/NC St one year) and (FSU/Clemson the seocnd year)

Clemson always plays NC St twice and alternates (Maimi/UVA one year) and (FSU/VA Tech the second year)
NC St always plays Clemson twice and alternates (FSU/VA Tech one year) and (Miami/UVA the second year)

The next year you can either keep the same top 4 and bottom 4 and follow the second year alternates in middle 6 or re-seed the top 4 and bottom 4 and pair up the middle six each with one partner and 2 of the 4 one year and the other2 of the 4 two second year.

Strength of ACC 14 unbalanced schedule:

39 - Pitt (4)
38 - Duke (3)
37 - Syr (2)
36 - UNC (1)

22 - FSU (5)
23 - Miami (6)

22 - UVA (7)
23 - VA Tech (8)

22 - Clemson (9)
23 - NC St (10)

9 - BC (14)
8 - Wake (13)
7 - GA Tech (12)
6 - MD (11)

So 5th seed FSU and 6th seed Miami have a chance to knock out one of the top 4 if they can sweep their group for 6 wins plus beat the bottom 3 and 1 top for 10.
11th seed Miami and 12th seed GA Tech have a chance to climb into the middle 6 if they can sweep their group for 6 plus beat win 2 of 6 from the middle group for 8.

If somebody in the middle group gets swept the conceivably might just have 3 wins versus the bottom group and get demoted there.
If somebody in the top group gets swept, even if they win all of the other games which is unlikely the end up with 9 wins.

Of course things change every year with graduations, recruits, coaching changes, etc.

This is exactly the type of concept that would make TV-people very happy. I'm not the biggest fan personally, but then again I'm not paying multi-millions of dollars for the rights to these games. I imagine the middle- and lowest-tier teams wouldn't be overly happy as it implies inferiority from the getgo and could perceivably hurt intra-conference recruiting by being so transparent. Still, scheduling like this may very well be an option on the table when that time comes.

What about football scheduling, though? Since that's driving this bus.

[ACCBBallFan]

Andy Katz column:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7003689/if-acc-divides-north-carolina-school-get-squeezed-college-basketball

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.

I tried doing something to equalize with currently ranked teams, using last year's record for unranked teams. It ended up pretty much the same with 4 the same and 2 moving which also helps some of the geography.

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 inhernet mid-week travel.

Keep FSU (#11) -NC St (9-4), BC (7-6 and slipping) and Wake (3-9) in Atlantic and move GA T (#25) and Miami (23 votes) there, plus add in Syracuse (8-5)

Keep VA Tech (#13), UNC (2 votes), UVA (4-8) and/Duke (3-9) in Coastal and move Clemson (#21) and MD (15 votes) there plus add Pitt (8-5).

Using current year records which is a small sample size and more subject to uneven schedules ends up almost the same except Clemson moves over with FSU-Miami and GA T and Wake moves over with UNC and Duke

3-0 VA T
3-0 UNC
2-1 Wake
2-1 UVA
1-1 MD
1-1 Duke
Pitt

3-0 GA T
3-0 Clemson
2-1 FSU
2-2 NC ST
1-1 Miami
0-3 BC
Syr

[UrinalCake]

Why not divide the conference geographically? Wouldn't that make the most sense in terms of travel? Hopping on a chartered plane might not be a big deal for the basketball team, but there are a whole lot of non-revenue sports that are affected here too.

ACC North:
BC
Syr
Pitt
MD
VT
UVA

ACC South:
Duke
UNC
NC State
Wake
Clemson
GA Tech
Miami
FSU

(I thought about naming the divisions "The Yankees" and "The Rebels," but decided that would get me into too much trouble 8-))

[ForkFondler]

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.

[ForkFondler]

This thread is in the subtopic of 14 team FB mechanics:

http://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=530&tid=163832847&mid=163832847&sid=996&style=2

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

[ForkFondler]

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.

[94duke]

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.

[ChillinDuke]

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

[94duke]

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.

[ChillinDuke]

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).


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

[ForkFondler]

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.

[uh_no]

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?

[ForkFondler]

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.

[uh_no]

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.