ADVERTISEMENT

It seems that we may soon be allowed to drop divisions

WoadBlue

Hall of Famer
Aug 15, 2008
20,287
4,255
113
link

Is Jim Phillips smart to know that the ACC needs to make that change ASAP? We need to make certain that the 2 teams with the best records/highest rankings meet in the CCG. We (meaning both the ACC ad UNC specifically) also could benefit from being able to play every league member at least twice over a 4 years span.
 
Pete Thamel tweets that the ACC is now discussing ending divisional play as early as 2023.

I say bring it on for 2023.

Thamel also talks about the possibility of 2+6 (6) scheduling. If each ACC team has 14 ACC foes, then ACC football must have 15 total members. Is this just Thamel being stupid and careless, or is he also hearing ACC officers and insiders talk about adding someone?
 
3-5-5. Three annual opponents. Remaining 10 conference rivals rotate onto the schedule every other season, five on, five off.

But then we're stuck with 3. As of today a trio of WF, NCSU, Duke might be nice, but a year or two from now that could be a dud.
 
3-5-5. Three annual opponents. Remaining 10 conference rivals rotate onto the schedule every other season, five on, five off.

But then we're stuck with 3. As of today a trio of WF, NCSU, Duke might be nice, but a year or two from now that could be a dud.
Could be UVA instead of WF. Would need to keep the south's oldest rivalry going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dooksux
3-5-5. Three annual opponents. Remaining 10 conference rivals rotate onto the schedule every other season, five on, five off.

But then we're stuck with 3. As of today a trio of WF, NCSU, Duke might be nice, but a year or two from now that could be a dud.
Because we would play the other 10 teams twice over 4 years, it doesn't matter much that the 3 annual teams might seem dull even over a period of 5 years.
 
Andy Staples knows it is coming, and he provides a set o possible 3 annual rivals for each team.

I do not like his list much. For example, I think the ACC needs to maximize FSU's fans, which means I would have the Noles play GT annually along with Clemson and Miami. The Atlanta area has a large number of FSU fans.

I think the 3 schools north of the Mason-Dixon should all play each other annually. I agree that Miami should play FSU and 2 former BE foes. But Miami-VT was the BE's biggest game for most of their history in that league, and the only way the ACC can get much out of 'having' NYC is if Syracuse plays at Yankee Stadium once a year - and Miami always has good or better TV ratings in NYC.
 
Jim Phillips was just on Packer and Durham - which is the only reason I turned it on. Packer and Durham are a bit boring. Philips clearly backs 3+5(5) scheduling, and he acknowledges there are some disagreements getting there. My guess is agreeing on the 3 annual rivals for each school. FSU, for example, likely wants to play Miami, Clemson and GT (which is what I say is best for ACC football), but also whining about how other teams will get an easier trio.

FSU boosters are often like a bunch of whiney wives at the country club.
 
Is the whole point of this to ensure the best two teams overall wind up in the ACC champ game, or to simply make football schedule more interesting? I hardly ever watch the ACC champ game unless we're in it, and bowl games are becoming more and more meaningless, so i'd vote for the latter.

All this hoopla around divisions and conf-champs games, and they still can't give us what we really want: 64 team playoffs.
 
Is the whole point of this to ensure the best two teams overall wind up in the ACC champ game, or to simply make football schedule more interesting? I hardly ever watch the ACC champ game unless we're in it, and bowl games are becoming more and more meaningless, so i'd vote for the latter.

All this hoopla around divisions and conf-champs games, and they still can't give us what we really want: 64 team playoffs.
I'd say both. The ACC needs its 2 top teams in the Championship every fall, and we also need more variety in the ACC regular season games to help spark more interest. From the UNC vantage, I want to play Clemson and FSU much more than we get to now. Dave Clawson on Packer and Durham said he's been at Wake 10 years and never once played Miami. Dave Teel talked about the need for VT to play both Clemson and FSU more than they do now.
 
Is the whole point of this to ensure the best two teams overall wind up in the ACC champ game, or to simply make football schedule more interesting? I hardly ever watch the ACC champ game unless we're in it, and bowl games are becoming more and more meaningless, so i'd vote for the latter.

All this hoopla around divisions and conf-champs games, and they still can't give us what we really want: 64 team playoffs.
That would take 6 consecutive weeks to finish. That's too much. I do think that if you go to 12, you should go to 16. That will require the same number of Saturdays as 12.
 
That would take 6 consecutive weeks to finish. That's too much. I do think that if you go to 12, you should go to 16. That will require the same number of Saturdays as 12.
6 weeks... could be done by mid Jan which kinda when we're done anyway.
 
6 weeks... could be done by mid Jan which kinda when we're done anyway.
But it would be 6 extra games for the teams that reach the Championship Game. That is a very long schedule. I don't see Presidents going for that. I think they'd easily add 1 week and go to 8 teams. But they might balk at going to 12 or 16 teams, which would be adding 2 more weeks, meaning that those in the Championship play 4 game after their CCG.
 
Eight teams is the right amount. The minimum wins for non playoff bowls should be set at seven instead of six.
 
ADVERTISEMENT