new schedule format

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,051
UNC got their best rivals and 2 of them are within 25 miles of their campus. UVA has been a rival of theirs for a long time as well. They have recently been playing WF as a non conference game as well. It is a whopping 70 miles up I-40. Easy for their fans to attend. So their away games are easy for their fans to attend in large numbers. Not many GT fans want to visit Winston Salem or even Louisville. Until we can compete with Clempson- not much reason to go up there either.
 

BuzzDraft

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
227
I am fine with doing away with divisions, but I still would rather have no locked in pairings. It isn't competitively balanced. For example, 10 teams avoid Clemson every other year while we get them every year. That's a competitive disadvantage.

Rotate 5 teams out of your conference schedule each year and play the remaining 8. Everyone in conference would play each team the same number of times (8) in a 13 year cycle, or a bit more (1.23 times to be exact) than once every two years.

If someone is so intent on playing a specific foe every year, they can simply schedule that game as an "out of conference" game (doesn't count in the conference standings) the 5 years in 13 the foe rotates off the conference schedule. UNC did this with Wake last year.
 
roadkill

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,927
yeti92 said:
By pairing us with 2 teams we have basically no history with, and also happen to be the strongest performing teams as of late.

Click to expand...

ACC never does us any favors for sure.
I still like the 3-5-5 concept better than the current divisions. At least if there's a team from the Atlantic (such as FSU) that you wished we played more often, you'll get your wish.
 
candrewk

candrewk

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
54
If I was told they were going into this without having seen the primary opponents. I would expect the ACC to have enough competency to pit us against Clemson, and either Duke, VT, or Miami as 2/3 primary rivalries. I know all three of those schools have a lot of rivals which is why I’d really only ask for 1/3.

The fact that we drew 0/3 and *still* ended up with the hardest primary opponent matchup of anyone in the ACC is insane.
 
GT_05

GT_05

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,370
We have an all-time combined series lead against these three opponents of 75-42. We are undefeated against Louisville! I’m sure these teams are distraught about having to play us every year. 😉
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,013
If they would’ve made FSU or Miami one of our permanent rivals there would be people b*tching that the schedule was too hard and unfair.

If they gave us Duke or Syracuse there would be people b*tching that nobody will care about those games because those teams suck.

I think the draw we got is pretty solid. I don’t think Wake is very good, and I don’t think they will sustain the level they are at now anyway. There are a lot of Louisville fans that make the trip to ATL, and they are a solid program. It should be a good matchup and will draw a decent amount of attention. At least as much as a standard Coastal game against Pitt or UVA would. Neither of them are traditional rivals, but our traditional rivals have kicked our *** recently. Might as well change things up
 
CuseJacket

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,627
Techster said:
Wonder what the reasoning for Louisville as our primary opponent. I would have figured it would have been VT/Duke/UNC/FSU/UVA given our recent history with those teams.
Click to expand...
It's pretty straight forward.

No one cares about Louisville. Not old ACC. Not old Big East. Therefore three teams had to be stuck with Louisville.

It's not any more complicated than that.

ETA: it's basically the same thing with Wake, and we got them too. Getting two that way kind of stinks.
 

cthenrys

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
942
Location
Highland Village, TX
CuseJacket said:
It's pretty straight forward.

No one cares about Louisville. Not old ACC. Not old Big East. Therefore three teams had to be stuck with Louisville.

It's not any more complicated than that.

ETA: it's basically the same thing with Wake, and we got them too. Getting two that way kind of stinks.
Click to expand...
yep.... pretty much. Someone had to have them so why not us.... There's zero connection / rivalry with either Wake or Louisville so we got stuck with them. The larger issue is without divisions when do we ever sniff an ACCCG again... That's a lot of teams we have to jump over instead of being the tallest midget in the Coastal.
 
Adadu

Adadu

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,101
I ****ing detest this. They are doing this strictly to try to get better championship matchups for $. Garbage. The smaller ACC schools are ****ed MASSIVELY here, especially with how NIL is shaping up (just look at what Miami did this week). We are in big-time trouble for ever seeing another ACC champ game with this format.
 
Adadu

Adadu

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,101
alagold said:
wow, we are by far the most injured by this set up right now it seems
Click to expand...
I don't even think we should care that much about the win %'s of opponents here, the fact that we would have to be top two in win % in the conference to get to the champ game regardless of our opponents is far far worse. There's also a lot more to the story than just looking at surface-level data like W's and L's. How close were those wins, against what quality of opponent, injury situations, etc.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
yeti92 said:
By pairing us with 2 teams we have basically no history with, and also happen to be the strongest performing teams as of late.

Click to expand...

  1. If we can't figure out how to compete against Wake and Louisville, we have bigger problems than the ACC scheduling illuminati
  2. The schedule could have been better aligned across the ACC--the graph I posted could've been more symmetric ;). That's general incompetence and possibly politics, but not deadly
  3. I'd have taken a swap of FSU for Clemson, even though Clemson is an easier drive.
  4. We lose "permanent" rivals of
    1. Pitt (who just beat Wake in the championship and has been toxic during the last three-ish years. We last beat them in 2017),
    2. Duke (permanent rivals of Duke, Syracuse, and BC would have been bad for ratings and attendance but nice for bowl eligibility)
    3. VT (who has had the edge on us lately; 2020 we didn't play)
    4. Miami (who is getting NIL funding that boggles the mind)
    5. UNC (meh)
    6. UVa (home games are fine)
  5. So, how is this not better than what we've got this year?
 
Adadu

Adadu

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,101
slugboy said:
  1. If we can't figure out how to compete against Wake and Louisville, we have bigger problems than the ACC scheduling illuminati
  2. The schedule could have been better aligned across the ACC--the graph I posted could've been more symmetric ;). That's general incompetence and possibly politics, but not deadly
  3. I'd have taken a swap of FSU for Clemson, even though Clemson is an easier drive.
  4. We lose "permanent" rivals of
    1. Pitt (who just beat Wake in the championship and has been toxic during the last three-ish years. We last beat them in 2017),
    2. Duke (permanent rivals of Duke, Syracuse, and BC would have been bad for ratings and attendance but nice for bowl eligibility)
    3. VT (who has had the edge on us lately; 2020 we didn't play)
    4. Miami (who is getting NIL funding that boggles the mind)
    5. UNC (meh)
    6. UVa (home games are fine)
  5. So, how is this not better than what we've got this year?
Click to expand...
The fact that we can't cheese our way to the champ game from a mediocre/worse than the atlantic coastal division anymore is what takes the cake. I have no idea when we will ever see Tech as top two in win % out of all ACC teams. Did that even happen in 2014??
 
Top