ACC Divisions, why not round robin?

[RamblinPeck]

Been a while since we complained about this, but with the way the ACCCG went down, and looking at the Big12 debacle as well, I'm disliking the division idea more and more.

Seems to me we'd get a lot more semblance of balance and a much better idea of who the two best teams in the conference are by going to a round robin type schedule. Could have a "rival" or two locked in like we do now, but otherwise rotate it every year like Big Televen does.

We'd have some odd years, thats for sure, but we wouldn't end up with as much lopsided stuff as we had this year, with the coastal being a tight race with quite a few good teams vs BC and the sisters of the poor in the Atlantic. Also has the advantage of keeping more interest in all the conference games and keeping some semblance of passion between schools like GT and FSU, VT and UMd, etc.

 

[beej67]

I agree that divisions are dumb. We should just do a 12 team round robin and the two teams with the best conference record should go to the championship game.

 

[Allen Koholic]

I think they're trying to avoid the way the Big Hidden Eleven does it, where you can have multiple teams with the same record, and obscure, almost random tie-breakers in effect.

 

[beej67]

Can't be any worse than using BCS ranking as a tiebreaker. As a matter of fact, it'd be a lot easier. In the case where you have more than 2 teams tied with the same record, go head-to-head. In the case where that doesn't do it, include the teams with one more loss than the two teams of interest, and do a sub-conference record amongst them. Repeat.

The only way that would possibly not reach a tie breaking condition is if two teams had exactly the same record vs the exactly the same opponents and didn't play each other.

 

[cyptomcat]

and obscure, almost random tie-breakers in effect.

as obscure as dividing the conference into two random divisions and letting divisions compete?

I don't agree with the OP though. Clemson and FSU are FAR from little sisters. Depending on the year, the division strengths vary. Since 2005, Coastal and Atlantic are 2-2 in the ACCCG.

 

[lonestarjacket]

Divisions aren't dumb. A championship game in a conference without divisions would be dumb. Conferences that are so big that they need divisions are dumb. But I was assured that you either became a mega-conference or be prepared to be dissolved like the SWC was.

I would much prefer conferences with an absolute maximum of ten teams and a requirement that every team play every other team in a given conference to be eligible for the championship...you know, like it was before the SEC and Big Eight started consuming other conferences.

 

[Ish]

I agree that divisions are dumb. We should just do a 12 team round robin and the two teams with the best conference record should go to the championship game.

11 conference games + UGA = hardest schedule in history of ever

 

[GTSaxophone]

Divisions aren't dumb. A championship game in a conference without divisions would be dumb. Conferences that are so big that they need divisions are dumb. But I was assured that you either became a mega-conference or be prepared to be dissolved like the SWC was.

I would much prefer conferences with an absolute maximum of ten teams and a requirement that every team play every other team in a given conference to be eligible for the championship...you know, like it was before the SEC and Big Eight started consuming other conferences.

I will say that this is how the Pac-10 conducts business, and I respect that. Unfortunately, when you have a 2 win and a 0 win team in your conference, it drags things down. The only two options I value are everyone play everyone, or everyone has divisions, and play a conf. championship game.

 

[gtfan088]

This a little off-topic, but it's conceivable that the Falcons and Bucs in the NFC South could need Strength of Victory or even Strength of Schedule to determine who goes to the playoffs. Home teams in their division are something like 24-2 this year and the Falcons host the Bucs this weekend. A Falcons win and both teams are 9-5 with two very winnable games remaining (@ Minnesota, St. Louis for Atlanta, San Diego and Oakland for Tampa).

Should it play out that both teams finish 11-5 then head-to-head, division record, record in common games, and record in NFC games would all be equal. So it would then go to strength of victory...each team would have one win over N.O., Carolina, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay, Kansas City, San Diego, Oakland, and of course the win over each other. That would leave each team with one other win: St. Louis for Atlanta, and Seattle for Tampa. Both of those teams are currently 2-11.

If that doesn't solve it, it would come down to strength of schedule, in which case it would be determined by who finishes with a better record between Dallas (8-5) who beat the Bucs and Philly (7-5-1) who beat the Falcons. Luckily, this is as far as the madness can go if this particluar scenario plays out given that the Eagles have that tie on their record. The next tiebreaker down the list is the best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed...

 

[beej67]

11 conference games + UGA = hardest schedule in history of ever

I'd say 8 conference games, out of 12, and have folks cycle on and off your schedule. Two best conference records play in the championship game. Have tiebreakers go back to conference SOS using the old SOS equation from the original BCS formula, where 2/3 of it is your opponent's winning percentage, and 1/3 is your oppononent's opponent's winning percentage.

 

[SuperToe]

I'd say 8 conference games, out of 12, and have folks cycle on and off your schedule. Two best conference records play in the championship game. Have tiebreakers go back to conference SOS using the old SOS equation from the original BCS formula, where 2/3 of it is your opponent's winning percentage, and 1/3 is your oppononent's opponent's winning percentage.

I don't have the time to look it up right now, but I believe the NCAA prohibits you from having a championship game if you don't have divisions.

 

[RamblinPeck]

I don't have the time to look it up right now, but I believe the NCAA prohibits you from having a championship game if you don't have divisions.

I can't imagine that being true, but the NCAA has done dumber things. I know conferences with less than 12 members cannot have one, but I dont think it specifies how they do it.

 

[refrigeratormover]

Beej, I agree with you but make it 9+nadlicker+1 easy+1 national team

 

[JWE37]

I say keep the divisions how they are. Keep the # of conference games at 8. Drop 1 non conference game. Start playoff system.

8 conference games
1 non-BCS school game
1 BCS school game
1 Ugay
1 ACC championship game
1 NCAA D1 quarterfinal playoff game
1 NCAA D1 semifinal playoff game
1 NCAA D1 NC game

 

[GT65_UGA89]

I like the division format but would tweak it a bit by moving Clemson into the Coastal and Miami into the Atlantic --of course the 'separate UM & FSU' powers that be would never allow this to happen.

 

[mm42]

This why we never should have expanded. Expansion was stupid and useless.

Our championship game is an embarrassment.

VPI and Miami are an embarrassment.

And we are stuck with stupid divisions.

9 teams with 8 conference round-robin games was the perfect setup, but morons went and ruined it with expansion.

 

[darthdad]

I agree that divisions are dumb. We should just do a 12 team round robin and the two teams with the best conference record should go to the championship game.

12 team round robin and screw the championship game.

 

[GTJay]

I think we can keep the divisions the way they are, as long as the ACC adds a ninth conference game for each school.

That way, for instance, we can pick up F$U as our 2nd permanent cross-division 'rival'. Also the UNC can start playing Wake again every year, and Duke can play NCSU which should make the Carolina Mafia happy. Likewise, VT and Maryland could play every year, and then perhaps match Miami with BC, and Clemson with UVA (or else swap and match the "U" with Clemson, and BC with UVA). This way we could play our meaningful local ACC rivals annually and play each ACC school at least twice every four years.

Then we'd be left with 3 non-conference games:
(1)UGAy (2) Div 1-AA school (3) one other.

 

[WracerX]

I think we can keep the divisions the way they are, as long as the ACC adds a ninth conference game for each school.

That way, for instance, we can pick up F$U as our 2nd permanent cross-division 'rival'. Also the UNC can start playing Wake again every year, and Duke can play NCSU which should make the Carolina Mafia happy. Likewise, VT and Maryland could play every year, and then perhaps match Miami with BC, and Clemson with UVA (or else swap and match the "U" with Clemson, and BC with UVA). This way we could play our meaningful local ACC rivals annually and play each ACC school at least twice every four years.

Then we'd be left with 3 non-conference games:
(1)UGAy (2) Div 1-AA school (3) one other.

Making FSU and Clemson our permanent rivals would put us at a disadvantage to the other teams in our division. If you want to have quality rivals, then we need to go to geographical divisions. If we must have cross divisional rivalries, I would suggest:

GT - Uva
Clem - Md
FSU - VT
Miami - BC
2 NC schools – 2 more NC schools

 

[floridajacket]

The Big 12's BCS tie breaker was dumb. The SEC and ACC use a better version where, in a similar three-way tie, the top BCS ranked teams go if it is ranked more than five spots ahead of the two other teams. Otherwise the winner of the head-to-head of the top two teams go (ie Texas).

An alternative would be to do what the NFL does and use the point margins of the top 3's head-to-head games. It could encourage running up the score, but I don't think running up the score is usually an issue when you're playing a team you're tied with in conference. OU would have gone under this method as well and they probably are the best team of the three right now.