ACC Realignment: Smart Money On Keeping Atlantic, Coastal Divisions?
by Brian Favat on Oct 13, 2011 12:01 PM EDT
in Conference Expansion
Email
Print
Interesting read from David Teel of the Daily Press who recaps the ACC's discussion topics from last week's annual fall meetings in Charlottesville. Those hot topics included renegotiating with ESPN on the conference's TV media rights deal, number of conference basketball and football games to be played as well as how Syracuse and Pittsburgh affect the current Atlantic-Coastal divisional format.
So will the conference use the additions of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to completely redraw the current divisional lines? Outlook not so good.
Decisions are months away, but the smart money is on the ACC retaining the current Atlantic-Coastal division structure and adopting a nine-game conference schedule for football, 18 for basketball.
[snip]
As for divisions, [Virginia Tech AD Jim] Weaver and [Virginia AD Craig] Littlepage agree: Keep the Atlantic and Coastal, adding Syracuse to one, Pitt to the other.
"The reason is we've gotten brand identity with that model," Weaver said. "I don't know if that's the way it will go. I hope it goes that way. It doesn't make sense to me to start over."
I guess both Weaver and Littlepage didn't approve of any of my four ACC divisional realignment proposals.
Now while I understand both Weaver and Littlepage's rationale behind building on current ACC divisions brand awareness, does this really make the most sense for the ACC? Ask your average college football fan to name the ACC programs in the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions today and my guess is over half of them couldn't give you the complete picture. This is after six years of football under the divisional format. Same goes for the Big Ten's Legends and Leaders Divisions, which I still can't figure out.
Would you be OK with the ACC standing pat with its current divisions?
More importantly, which program goes where? Syracuse in the Atlantic? Syracuse in the Coastal? My guess is most Boston College fans would stump for Cuse over 'Pitt, but which program do you think the rest of the Atlantic favors? Your thoughts?
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Y'all's setup is even worse than Legends and Leaders
At least I can correct separate the 12 teams in the B1G, even if I can’t tell you which one is which (it’s simple: separate the teams in a logical, geographical way, with the dividing line drawn from NE to SW, then switch Wisconsin and Northwestern for no apparent reason). I have no idea who’s in the Coastal and Atlantic. I mean, I could probably figure it out, but. . .
UNC is with Duke. And they’re with Virginia Tech, because they lose to them every year. And UVA, because of the South’s Oldest. Also, VT/GT is a fun game every year, so they must be there too. Then it’s either Miami or Florida State, and it must be Miami, because we’ve seen VT/FSU in the title game.
Seriously, this makes no sense.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 12:33 PM EDT reply actions
Agree. The two leagues were poorly construed.
by Eagle in Brighton on Oct 13, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed, but how can you correctly separate the 12 teams in the B1G already? Like, seriously, how?
B1G should have been East-West IMO to preserve significance of Michigan-Ohio State’s regular season meeting.
Editor, BC Interruption
He's right that it's actually really easy to correctly separate the B1G divisions
It’s knowing which one is Legends and which one is Leaders that’s hard (with a minor secondary problem of knowing which Illinois school got swapped with Wisconsin). The unofficial names for the divisions are “Why is Wisconsin Here?” and “Where is Wisconsin?”.
I mostly agree that it should have been East/West (and either it will end up there or Ohio State / Michigan will be moved within five years).
The B1G probably could have picked two division names that sounds a little more dissimilar (and that both didn’t start with Le-).
Editor, BC Interruption
Huh?
Use the eastern and central time zones, switching Whisky & Illinois, with Michigan and Michigan St.
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
BE vs. ACC
They can do whatever with Syracuse and Pitt but once they hit 16 I hope they split them either North/South since with 2 more northern schools, you won’t have to carve up UNC/Duke/NC St./Wake or go Big East vs. ACC aka new vs. old just so we can have an internal ACC-BE challenge week.
Pitt to Atlantic please!
Syracuse replacing VTech as our crossover, Pitt and VTech crossover.
by CSOM_97 on Oct 13, 2011 12:47 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm with this
Though I think both Syracuse and Pitt are going to fight to be in the Coastal, so as to have those all important previous rivalry’s returned against VT and Miami. Putting Syracuse over in the Coastal though would allow for Duke/UVA/UNC rivalries to ensue. Though I think having a division that stretches from Miami to Syracuse would not excite AD’s too much
Don't give up, don't ever give up ~ Jim Valvano
Biased, but I think Syracuse-BC is a more important rivalry than either Syracuse-Miami and Syracuse-VT. Certainly Syracuse-VT.
Editor, BC Interruption
But also opens up possibility of two smaller Northern private schools playing in Charlotte in December.
Swofford just soiled his drawers.
BC-Cuse need to be in the same division imo. Puts greater significance on regular season results.
BC-VT 2007 … great game, but doesn’t mean as much when you lose the rematch.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 13, 2011 2:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m for this, but also … swap BC for Georgia Tech.
Atlantic: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh
Coastal: Boston College, Duke, Miami, North Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Editor, BC Interruption
I definitely support swapping BC and GTech still
Unfortunately, now that I see this, I do not see how Syracuse, Duke, and UNC can all be in the same side. Due respect to Pitt and Maryland, those are the biggest three powers for hoops.
What about adding BC to the Coastal and putting both ‘Cuse and Pitt in the Atlantic? That balance out the football and hoops power pretty well. Unfortunately it definitely means we can’t crossover with Clemson (that would surely be ’Cuse)
You know... I really like this split
Coastal
UNC, Duke, Vtech, Miami, UVA, Gtech, BC
Atlantic
Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, Wake, NC State, Clemson, FSU
Crossovers:
Miami-FSU, UNC-NC State, Duke-Wake, BC-Cuse, GTech-Clemson, UVA-Maryland, VTech-Pitt
BC changes sides, but gets paired with Miami (lost OBE rivalry, check), and Virginia, GTech, UNC, Duke (smart school synergy check), and VTech (existing crossover rival, check)
Downside for BC is we are on the opposite side from all of Cuse, Maryland, and Pitt. We would crossover with Cuse though, who is the only one actually driveable from Boston. The Maryland pairing hasn’t really taken off at all, so no big loss there. Also lose Clemson which I would be sad to see, but this seems to work very, very well.
Hoops and Football power balance very nicely. For football, two of VTech, Miami, FSU, and Clemson on each side. For hoops, Duke and UNC on one side balanced by Pitt, Cuse, and Maryland on the other.
Makes sense to me
Seems a sensible plan. I might tweak it a bit but it basically works.
I think it’s impossible to keep every single team with all of their rivals in a divisional setup, but some ways are better than others.
I think it is best if each “non-south” team has at least one road game in the south each year (one of GT/Clem/FSU/Miami) and visits Florida at least once every other year.
Personally (as a Terp fan) I think it’d be nice to MD have a rivalry with BC. Maryland really doesn’t have any strong football rivalries and BC would be nice. UMD has rivalries with West Virginia (which has Pitt), Virginia (which has VT), and used to have Penn State (which was too one-sided to be a real rivalry).
Maryland’s best bet for a strong football rival is either BC or Syracuse IMO.
As for basketball, I don’t like the idea of divisions, and don’t think they’re necessary. But who knows what they’ll do.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Maryland-Pittsburgh, Boston College-Syracuse
Maryland is made for Pittsburgh. Shares a border.
BC’s conference rival is now Syracuse. The Eagles have only played Holy Cross on the gridiron more times than the Orange. The two Northeastern private schools playing big time college sports. Share a highway.
The BC-Maryland ACC rivalry seemed way too forced to begin with.
Editor, BC Interruption
Pretty sure you’ll see BC and Syracuse in the same division and ending the regular season against one another in football. Don’t think you’ll see that game played on the last week of the regular season if they are on opposite sides of the conference for the ACC rematch factor, as unlikely as that may be.
Editor, BC Interruption
divisions in hoops??
That balance out the football and hoops power
are there divisions in hoops? I did not think there were basketball divisions. Am i mistaken? are invisible divisions used for scheduling purposes? or with 14 teams are divisions in hoops a must?
The ACC site, Yahoo etc do not report standing by division
http://www.theacc.com/this-is/accstandings.html#mbb
and with the hoops tourney, what difference do divisions make anyway?
When the ACC goes to 14, they are going to divisions in hoops. Home and home within your own division and one game alternating sites with the other side (or six of the other seven, undetermined)
Why would they go to hoops divisions?
There’s no real need to do divisions in hoops, and it’s easier to play everyone if you have either 3 or 5 rivalry teams (home & away each year) and rotate home & away with everyone else.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh i c.
Despite what he may think, Coach K is not king of the ACC.
It makes more sense (to me anyway) to have 3 rivalry teams that are “personalized” for each team (as much as possible) and have round-robin play within the conference (and double round-robin against your rival teams). Even with 16 teams it is possible (with an 18-game schedule).
Forcing divisions upon basketball would needlessly kill round-robin play.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
The round-robin died with the last ACC expansion. #TobaccoRoadPuristTweet
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 13, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
This is also Boston College’s fault.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 13, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmm?
It doesn’t need to. They still have round-robin play right now, it doesn’t need to go away.
It doesn’t even need to go away with 16 teams, although it would if you had divisions of eight teams each.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
I don’t think you are using “round-robin” in the Tobacco Road Purist vernacular.
ACC basketball round-robin = home-and-home with every other school, every year.
Achievable with 8 and 9 schools … not achievable with 11, 12 or 14.
Editor, BC Interruption
I know what you mean
Technically, two games is a “double round robin” but I see your point.
Right now each team has a double RR with two “rival” teams and a double RR with three of the remaining nine teams on a rotating basis. It creates a 16-game schedule, and non-rivals are played four times every three years.
Moving that system from 12 teams to 14 would probably mean three rival teams (double RR) and a double RR with two of the remaining ten teams on a rotating basis. It creates an 18-game schedule and non-rivals are played six times every five years.
If they move to two 7-team divisions for basketball and a 19-game schedule, then yes, they will play a double RR against each division opponent and a single RR against each non-division opponent.
However … if they move to divisions, and then later expand to 16 teams, they can’t realistically play a single RR against every non-division opponent – it would create a 22-game conference schedule.
But … if they stick with the rivalry plan, they can maintain an 18-game schedule and play everyone, even with 16 teams. A double RR against rivalry teams and a (permanent) single RR against non-rivalry teams makes for an 18-game schedule in a 16-team league.
The questions for the ACC are whether or not maintaining a single RR with everyone is more important than divisional play, how many OOC games they want to keep, and whether or not they care about how smooth a possible future transition from 14 teams to 16 teams would be.
I suppose they could go to divisions for 14 teams and then scrap the divisions for 16 teams, but that would be a bit silly.
My guess is that they would prefer to have a scenario in which everyone can play everyone else in the conference at least once every year (even with 16 teams) and therefore would be more likely to stick to a rivalry system.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
The above is confusing, if only because the current schedule is not a double round-robin format, either.
A double round-robin = play every other program twice.
Editor, BC Interruption
Actually, no
With a 19 game conference schedule you still play everybody.
Competitive balance is much more affected if you keep 14 teams in one division and play 3, 4, 5, or 6 teams twice. You can end up with very, very divergent competitive schedules this way.
With two divisions and a home and home in division and one game against the other division, you end up with matched schedules within each division, excepting only the home-road difference. Much more fair.
That's assuming they'll do 19 games
Are they willing to move to a 19 game conference schedule?
Right now they’ve got only 16 conference games, and people are concerned about moving to 18. I’m not sure they are willing to get rid of that many of the OOC games.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
18 is inevitable. ACC needs some leverage with the next round of TV negotiations with ESPN. More leverage = gotta give me something more than just Syracuse and Pitt.
Don’t think there’s any chance the ACC stays at 16 games. 18 easy … 19 not out of the question.
Editor, BC Interruption
I agree, 18 games will be here once they hit 14 teams. I’m just not as convinced of 19, or 20, or anything more than 18.
I’m just not convinced they’ll switch to divisional play (per my comments above).
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Divisional play is the only way to level the playing field resulting from an unbalanced schedule.
No divisions + 2x permanent “rivals” + rotating partners is much less fair than divisions + home-and-home within division + games against the other side.
Editor, BC Interruption
And if you are going to adopt the:
- Two divisions
- Home-and-home within division (12 games)
- One game against teams from the other side (6 games)
Why not go from 18 to 19 so you play every program every year?
What? Is Miami gonna miss that extra game against Florida Gulf Coast Sunshine State University College of Melboune? Probably not.
Editor, BC Interruption
If the only way you can remember that the A-C in ACC stands for Atlantic Coast is to have divisions called Atlantic and Coastal, you have more pressing issues to worry about than football. Namely, where did I put those velcro shoes? Let’s make it easier on everyone and go with geography.
I hope the conference uses a north and south split.
#1: 14 teams
North: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
#2: 16 teams, 2 new in the North
North: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, [Notre Dame], [other]
South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
#3: 16 teams, 2 new in the South
#4: 16 teams, 1 new in the North, 1 new in the South
You get the idea. I’m guessing Wake gets the short end of the NC stick. Wake moves first, NC State moves second.
item 1 has very unbalanced football power — swap out Miami for WF and it might be a go! (a BE reunion division!)
I could see that Miami swap working, WW.
The only problem I personally have with manipulated divisions is that we use the past and present to predict the future. Miami and Florida State should have met every year in the conference title game, but some schools have been surprisingly strong while others have been surprisingly weak.
I say go geographic and let it play out. Nebraska was able to throw its weight around in the early Big 12, but the power shifted to Texas and OU. The SEC has experienced phases of East/West dominance. Who knows who may emerge from a North/South ACC?
Do ya think Clemson will be voting in UConn anytime soon
from Shakin’ My Johnson Blog editor:
ACC expansion sucks, plain and simple. Not only does the conference add Syracuse but the schedule is now also extremely, extremely screwed up.
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
by FIGUREFOUR on Oct 11, 2011 11:37 PM EDT reply
.
My brain hurts
There is a way to have each team meet twice every four years on an 8-game schedule (for 14 teams) but it is based on a bit of quirky scheduling.
Basically it involves having two groups of four teams and two groups of three teams pairing off to create two 7-team divisions. After two years, the groups of three teams “swap divisions” to create new 7-team divisions.
It’s essentially an “unbalanced pod” schedule.
A team would play all of its pod opponents every year (as part of its division schedule). It would play each team in its “division partner pod” twice within two years, followed by zero times in the next two years (when the other non-matching pod is the division partner).
For the “matching pod” (the other pod with the same number of teams), they play those teams either once every two years (4-team pods) or twice every three years (3-team pods).
Over four years, every team plays every other team at least twice, but some teams would be twice in two years and zero times in the next two years.
It is a bit messy, but it’s a way to get two games against every conference opponent every four years and stay at an 8-game conference schedule.
As far as the ACC in its current setup, I’d imagine you’d have two four-team pods made up of the southern teams (NC/SC/GA/FL teams), and two three-team pods made up of the northern teams (VA/MD/PA/NY/MA).
Not that this plan would ever happen. But it’s a potential way to keep an 8-game schedule intact if they want to do it.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
ACC North ?
As I understand the discussion the divisions would be for football only ? Playing round robin for basketball. As a fan attending two or more away football games a year I would hope the ACC divisions would enhance the fans ability to drive to these games. Also I would imagine that both divisions would like exposure to Florida for recruiting purposes.
Having said all that,fan attendance would be maximized if there was a North Division consisting of :
BC, Syracuse, Md, Pitt, Va Tech, Va, (and for the Florida flavor) Miami ;
South Division : Wake, Duke, NC St, NC, Clemson, GT, and (FL flavor) Fla. ST
From what I have been able to gather Va wants to keep NC which can be accommodated by utilizing the Cross Division Opponent that exists today. This Cross Division could be applied for others split by North and South.
As a Pitt fan I would prefer our Cross Div Opponent to be GT, 2 city schools with easy and inexpensive air transportation access.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
