ACC designated rival

TampaBayJacket

TampaBayJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
4,261
Is this ever going to change? It doesnt seem to make much sense for most of the ACC and creates unbalanced schedules.
 
It's dumb. Put rivals in the same division, rotate cross division. They wanted fsu miami championship games and that's happened all of never. Just put rivals in the same division. The big 10 figured this out. Why can't we?
 
Teams have to beat Virginia Tech head-to-head almost every year if they want to win the Coastal division. BC stinks constantly, and although it can be cyclical, BC hasn't been any good since 2008. Duke gets Wake Forest, and everybody else gets an Atlantic opponents that's consistently at least as good or better than them.
 
JJacket said:
Clemson to coastal, Miami to Atlantic
Click to expand...

I don't see any big problems with this. It'd probably make the Coastal the tougher division in the near future, just because of how various ACC teams are performing now. But taking a longer view there are 3 factory programs in the ACC with a lot of money behind them: Miami, FSU, Clemson. Those 3 will need to be balanced between divisions which is impossible to do evenly. So it makes sense to me to swap Clemson for Miami. Neither Clemson nor Miami look to have games they'd miss by switching divisions. Clemson probably would have shorter travel for away opponents too => more Clemson fans at away games => more money

I suspect Miami and FSU were put in opposite divisions because historically those teams would have been the best two in the ACC (had they been in the ACC together). You wouldn't want them in the same division because it'd make for a wimpy championship game. Their regular season game would be the de facto championship. The better way to separate teams by divisions though is to look at the money in their programs. That is probably the best long-term predictor of success.
 
Last edited:
Of course there should be designated rivals. The pursuit of a "balanced schedule" would require continually shuffling the divisions regardless of history or tradition. There are schools that should play every year.

Changing the divisions is a completely separate argument. The Big Ten didn't just put all rivals in the same division. They just got ööööing lucky that when they split it geographically it turned out that way. The right thing to do was always to split the divisions geographically but they didn't in pursuit of a "balanced" schedule. Tell me how that pursuit turned out.

Say you switch Miami and Clemson. UNC still needs to play NC State. FSU is still going to want to play someone within an 8-hour drive of Tallahassee every year whether it's GT or Clemson. Wake is still going to need to play Duke (and every year currently Duke is still missing out on playing NC State, same with Wake not playing UNC). You can be an ass and say none of these games matter... Except they do matter to the fans of all these schools...and ultimately these kinds of games are good for the ACC.
 
gtzulu said:
I don't see any big problems with this. It'd probably make the Coastal the tougher division in the near future, just because of how various ACC teams are performing now. But taking a longer view there are 3 factory programs in the ACC with a lot of money behind them: Miami, FSU, Clemson.
Click to expand...

Louisville brought in more money than Clemson in 2016. You should include them then split the big 4.
 
Scrap the divisions, treat the ACC like the National League before anyone knew Florida and Colorado were real places. Top two teams by conference record play in the ACCCG.
 
I agree with Flunkout. It would be easy to rebalance the divisions to give us and Miami our designated rivals as division opponents...but very difficult to do it while maintaining the designated rival for everyone in the conference. Yes it creates persistently unbalanced schedules and isn't fair, but that's the price we pay to maintain tradition.

This is just one of the sucky things that comes with conference expansion, same as the loss of home-and-homes in college basketball. The conferences get more money but the fans get a worse experience.
 
Diseqc said:
What a pussy thread. Wah Clemson is good wah it's not fair.
Click to expand...
I just think Clemson ought to be on our side - if we are to continue divisions. I think Clemson, GT, UNC, Duke all fit quite nicely in a division. Just ass in a few of the other teams. Perhaps throw VT and UVA in with us. Add Wake to keep Duke happy.

Of course, this compacts travel for the Coastal and makes Atlantic trips longer, but that could be worked out with supplemental funds, if needed.

I do think one big ACC division with the two best teams playing for the championship is really the way to go. Just rotate schedules every two years after a home and away. If we end up having to miss Clemson a few years then iiwii. I think it'd be more interesting to just round robin the damn thing
 
MEwreck02 said:
Are you tired of playing Clemson ?
Click to expand...
No, I actually enjoy playing clemson every year. We should be in the same division rather than be rivals. Specifically, divisions should not be created based upon team strength because this is cyclical. Rather, it should be done based upon geography. The ACC is naturally a north-south conference. Imagine a south division with UM, FSU, GT, CU, UNC, Duke and NCSU; and a north division with VT, UofL, BC, SU, WF, Pitt and UVA. I see lots of natural geographical rivalries as well as a still-appealing ACCCG. One might say this would potentially knock the ACC out of the playoffs but since UM-FSU/CU-GT/UNC-Duke are already designated rivals, it actually take UofL off the schedule most years for FSU and CU.
 
The entire thing was rigged by the tobacco road lobby. Its politics. Unfortunately it benefits more schools than it hurts, so we are SOL.
 
I see the OPs point. The bigger issue is we have a significantly higher win % against the Atlantic than we do against the coastal. We should move divisions.
 
beej67 said:
The entire thing was rigged by the tobacco road lobby. Its politics. Unfortunately it benefits more schools than it hurts, so we are SOL.
Click to expand...
lolwut

It was set up like this so Miami & F$U would have the inside track each year. ACC wanted that marquee rematch in the title game more often than Tech/Wake, UNC/Clem, VT/BC, etc...
 
JoltinJacket said:
lolwut

It was set up like this so Miami & F$U would have the inside track each year. ACC wanted that marquee rematch in the title game more often than Tech/Wake, UNC/Clem, VT/BC, etc...
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.

It does not give Miami or FSU an inside track because it guarantees at least one of them a division loss, since they have to play each other. The teams it benefits are the ones who get patsy cross division rivals.

Go make a list of ACC patsies, then make a list of who gets to play them. Report back your findings, and cross reference those against teams in NC and VA.
 
I think we have a great slate of teams every year ACC-wise.

I hope it doesn't change. Even if it's detrimental to our ACC championship chances. Kids like to play at places like Clemson more than they do BC.
 
beej67 said:
You're an idiot.

It does not give Miami or FSU an inside track because it guarantees at least one of them a division loss, since they have to play each other. The teams it benefits are the ones who get patsy cross division rivals.

Go make a list of ACC patsies, then make a list of who gets to play them. Report back your findings, and cross reference those against teams in NC and VA.
Click to expand...
So you're saying they didn't intentionally split them into two divisions when they're in the same state? Why aren't UVA/VT or UNC/Duke in separate divisions. Going in, the odds on paper were better for a 7-1 or 6-2 Miami/F$U to make it despite a regular season loss to their rival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top