If the ACC scraps divisions...

[BuzzDraft]

No offense to Louisville, I have great respect for their program, but making a team we have played 2 times in our history a permanent rival is pretty lame.

I hated their addition myself. I still don't see any rationale other than ACC wanted to backfill the MD departure and remain at 14 members, for no apparent reason. Maybe balancing the divisions for the ACCCG but with doing away with divisions that is no longer operative either.

 

[CuseJacket]

Red - if it helps, I saw this on another Tech fan site as a rumored 3-5-5 setup:

Potential permanent opponents?
Boston College — Miami, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson — NC State, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Duke — North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech
Florida State — Miami, Clemson, Syracuse
Georgia Tech — Clemson, Duke, Louisville
Louisville — Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech
Miami — Florida State, Boston College, Pittsburgh
North Carolina — Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State — Clemson, Wake Forest, North Carolina
Pittsburgh — Louisville, Miami, Syracuse
Syracuse — Boston College, Florida State, Pittsburgh
Virginia — Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Virginia Tech — Virginia, Louisville, Boston College
Wake Forest — Duke, NC State, Virginia

The consensus fan favorites for Tech would be Clemson, Duke, and F$U, but a Warchant article yesterday quoted the F$U AD saying wtte that he didn't want Tech as a permanent opponent due to "other considerations".

ND would still be played as an OOC no less than once every two years per the current contract with them.

Personally, I don't want permanent locked-in opponents. The scheduling can be worked out for the five teams not played in a given year to be rotated for competitive balance. If there's a team you want to play so desperately, for the years they rotate out, you play them as an OOC game (it wouldn't count in the calculation of conference standings and tie-breakers) like UNC and Wake did last year.

I don't think that's anything more than random speculation by media.

No offense to Louisville, I have great respect for their program, but making a team we have played 2 times in our history a permanent rival is pretty lame.

I'm guessing there's going to be a situation where the league gets 90% of this with reasonable logic, then there are leftovers that just need to get paired. I think that's all this is with a GT/Louisville pairing... which again is not founded on anything, to my knowledge. No one in the ACC really cares about a permanent "rivalry" with Louisville.

 

[bobongo]

I don't think that's anything more than random speculation by media.



I'm guessing there's going to be a situation where the league gets 90% of this with reasonable logic, then there are leftovers that just need to get paired. I think that's all this is with a GT/Louisville pairing... which again is not founded on anything, to my knowledge.

Louisville doesn't have any rivals in the ACC, but somebody will have to get stuck with them.

 

[roadkill]

I don't think that's anything more than random speculation by media.



I'm guessing there's going to be a situation where the league gets 90% of this with reasonable logic, then there are leftovers that just need to get paired. I think that's all this is with a GT/Louisville pairing... which again is not founded on anything, to my knowledge. No one in the ACC really cares about a permanent "rivalry" with Louisville.

The ACC AD’s are holding their spring meetings now. Media interviews suggest that the 3-5-5 model is favored, with the possibility that it could begin as soon as next year (2023 season). Agree that the proposed pairings are just speculation at this point, but it makes sense that they may want to keep the existing permanent rivals and add two more.

The 3-5-5 has a certain appeal over the current setup. No matter who your permanent rivals are, you’re going to get to play everyone else over a two-season interval, which also means you’ll get a home game against every ACC team at least every four years. I wouldn’t mind that.

 

[Techwood Relict]

Louisville doesn't have any rivals in the ACC, but somebody will have to get stuck with them.

It feels as though Louisville has some geographic consideration with this along with the somebody has to factor. I'd be ok with it.

 

[bobongo]

The 3-5-5 has a certain appeal over the current setup. No matter who your permanent rivals are, you’re going to get to play everyone else over a two-season interval, which also means you’ll get a home game against every ACC team at least every four years. I wouldn’t mind that.

Makes more sense than these divisions.

My favorite construct is a nine-team conference. Play everybody + 3 OOC games and have a pure conference champion.

 

[awbuzz]

...
Personally, I don't want permanent locked-in opponents. The scheduling can be worked out for the five teams not played in a given year to be rotated for competitive balance. If there's a team you want to play so desperately, for the years they rotate out, you play them as an OOC game (it wouldn't count in the calculation of conference standings and tie-breakers) like UNC and Wake did last year.

I agree, wholeheartedly!

 

[CuseJacket]

Reminder to vote in the poll.

As it stands now, ~60% of voters prefer to get rid of permanent rivals. I wonder how much of this has to do with Clemson specifically, or if it's the general idea of permanent rivals.

 

[iceeater1969]

Reminder to vote in the poll.

As it stands now, ~60% of voters prefer to get rid of permanent rivals. I wonder how much of this has to do with Clemson specifically, or if it's the general idea of permanent rivals.

Yea, I voted to drop the Clemson 90% certain loss..
.
Would love to drop uga 90% certain loss and add Auburn / Tenn on alternate basis. Great fans and the away games would actually be fun.

Drop ole miss level team and keep ND games ( great away game) .

We would net one win by dropping clemson and uga.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I voted No, but will miss the Clemson every year. I just think that it is better to play everybody on a more regular basis.

I would vote 0-8-8.

 

[BuzzDraft]

Reminder to vote in the poll.

As it stands now, ~60% of voters prefer to get rid of permanent rivals. I wonder how much of this has to do with Clemson specifically, or if it's the general idea of permanent rivals.

For me I'm against the general concept.

Dominant teams come and go in cycles but the rotation of all opponents (since we can't do round robin anymore) makes the competitive balance across the conference more fair and we would cycle through our conference brethren more frequently. And like UNC and Wake last year, if a school finds it so important to keep a rivalry on their schedule as a "permanent rival", they can always schedule them in years they rotate off schedule as an OOC game that doesn't count in the conference standings and tie-breakers.

 

[RamblinRed]

NCAA removed the division requirements today, It also removed restrictions on recruiting class sizes for the next 2 years (you still can't have more than 85 on scholarship per year, but you can sign however many you want for the next 2 years to get to 85 - this is a reaction to all the portal movements and schools having issues getting to 85 scholarship players because they had so many leave).

NCAA Council eliminates restrictions on recruiting class sizes, FBS conference title game requirements

The changes were recommended by the Football Oversight Committee after its most recent meeting

www.cbssports.com

PAC 12 immediately did away with their divisions, will be interesting to see how quickly the ACC does. PAC 12 will keep their current schedule for 2022, but the conference championship will include the 2 teams with the highest conference winning percentage regardless of division. They plan to have a new scheduling model in place for 2023.

Pac-12 revamps football conference championship game format, plans to explore scheduling options beyond 2022

The Pac-12 title game will now feature the top two teams by conference winning percentage

www.cbssports.com

 

[bensaysitathome]

NCAA removed the division requirements today, It also removed restrictions on recruiting class sizes for the next 2 years (you still can't have more than 85 on scholarship per year, but you can sign however many you want for the next 2 years to get to 85 - this is a reaction to all the portal movements and schools having issues getting to 85 scholarship players because they had so many leave).

NCAA Council eliminates restrictions on recruiting class sizes, FBS conference title game requirements

The changes were recommended by the Football Oversight Committee after its most recent meeting

www.cbssports.com

PAC 12 immediately did away with their divisions, will be interesting to see how quickly the ACC does. PAC 12 will keep their current schedule for 2022, but the conference championship will include the 2 teams with the highest conference winning percentage regardless of division. They plan to have a new scheduling model in place for 2023.

Pac-12 revamps football conference championship game format, plans to explore scheduling options beyond 2022

The Pac-12 title game will now feature the top two teams by conference winning percentage

www.cbssports.com

In the era we're in, where the only thing that matters is the playoffs, this is a good call. The PAC needs to do whatever they can to stay relevant late season, and this will certainly help. Look what the COVID year did, with Clemson and ND.

More teams in contention late in the season = more eyes on the television.

 

[RamblinRed]

FWIW, Mountain West has also said it will do away with divisions starting in 2023.

I do think if the ACC moves away from divisions that will likely make it more difficult for GT to make the Conference Championship going forward.
Right now GT plays in arguably the weakest P5 division in college football. If you do away with divisions you are no longer competing just against those teams for a conference championship slot.
You are now competing against 13 teams to be one of the top 2.

If GT continues to have Clemson as a permanent rival you could argue that GT's schedule becomes marginally harder overall as GT will have more games against the perceived tougher former Atlantic teams and fewer against the 'weaker' Coastal teams.

Now if Clemson is not a permanent rival the schedule would probably be slightly easier. But either way I think the overall odds of making the championship game will be reduced. If you assume GT is not the best program in conference, then you are no longer competing against 6 teams for a spot, you are competing against 12 teams for a spot.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

FWIW, Mountain West has also said it will do away with divisions starting in 2023.

I do think if the ACC moves away from divisions that will likely make it more difficult for GT to make the Conference Championship going forward.
Right now GT plays in arguably the weakest P5 division in college football. If you do away with divisions you are no longer competing just against those teams for a conference championship slot.
You are now competing against 13 teams to be one of the top 2.

If GT continues to have Clemson as a permanent rival you could argue that GT's schedule becomes marginally harder overall as GT will have more games against the perceived tougher former Atlantic teams and fewer against the 'weaker' Coastal teams.

Now if Clemson is not a permanent rival the schedule would probably be slightly easier. But either way I think the overall odds of making the championship game will be reduced. If you assume GT is not the best program in conference, then you are no longer competing against 6 teams for a spot, you are competing against 12 teams for a spot.

Agreed that it may become more difficult to make the championship game but as it stands we struggle to make it anyway since miami and Unc rarely play Clemson. Also, Clemson is a big draw and stadium is pretty full when they show up. The new setup at least levels the playing field a bit more if we can get Clemson locked in with two weaker long term rivals like uva and Duke.

 

[RamblinRed]

Here is one person's run at an eight game schedule for the power 5 conference going forward.

College football schedule: How the Power Five can streamline conference slates, form equity without divisions

The newest round of realignment will challenge how conferences create schedules in the near future

www.cbssports.com

 

[travgt01]

Here is one person's run at an eight game schedule for the power 5 conference going forward.

College football schedule: How the Power Five can streamline conference slates, form equity without divisions

The newest round of realignment will challenge how conferences create schedules in the near future

www.cbssports.com

He can eat a **** then. BC and Pitt, you kidding me? I think clemson is going to be a given. As for the other 2, I'd be happy with any combo of duke, fsu, vt, unc, uva, unc. I'd prefer duke and fsu. I expect it to actually end up as clemson, duke, and a random big east team that we have no history with. And I'd be alright with that.

 

[slugboy]

UVA will be a half-permanent rival; keeping only Charlottesville games

 

[travgt01]

That would be so ACC.

 

[Tennessee GT Fan]

I would like GT's permanent opponents to be FSU,North Carolina and Clemson