Expansion

BainbridgeJacket said:
So are the new members in their own pod or does this mean they're re-doing the permanent rivals.
Click to expand...
My guess is that they will have to abandon the pods or split up the new teams, since you need 4 teams in a group that play every year. They only have 3 teams west of the Mississippi, so who would be the eastern team to join them? It would only be 1-2 long away games each year, but fans would probably want to maintain some connection to their old ACC rivalries, instead of playing Stanford, Cal, and SMU every year.
 
jacket67 said:
My guess is that they will have to abandon the pods or split up the new teams, since you need 4 teams in a group that play every year. They only have 3 teams west of the Mississippi, so who would be the eastern team to join them? It would only be 1-2 long away games each year, but fans would probably want to maintain some connection to their old ACC rivalries, instead of playing Stanford, Cal, and SMU every year.
Click to expand...

Very reminiscent when the Atlanta Falcons was the team in the NFC West with the LA Rams, SF 49ers, and I think New Orleans before 'realignment' and the new teams were added (Carolina, etc.). I hope we're not 'odd man out'.
 
I think my view of the pods was flawed, since each team has 3 permanent opponents, but the teams are not actually grouped in 4s. In other words, Tech plays WF, Louisville, and Clemson every year, but each of those teams has a different set of permanent opponents. So, Stanford could play the 2 other west teams every year, but would have a different eastern rival team than each of the other new teams. If the teams were actually in pods of 4, the total number of teams in the conference would have to be divisible by 4, which is not the case.
 
GTJay said:
I’m just hoping it all implodes at some point, and that when the dust settles we’ll be back to regional conferences/divisions of no more than ten teams each.
Click to expand...
I think over time there's a good chance that it will, but with Fox now wading into the waters, it will take a while for it to settle out.
 
savbandjacket said:
Dumbest idea in the hall of dumbest ideas. Trade a game that interests all our fans with one no one cares about.
Click to expand...
Yeah sure. And then the same fans will complain about how the ACC “screws GT” with a schedule containing Clemson, FSU while GT plays UGA annually. While other ACC programs get a combo of Duke, Wake, BC and Syracuse for example.

So why drop UofL? Replace UofL with who?
 
USCJacket said:
Yeah sure. And then the same fans will complain about how the ACC “screws GT” with a schedule containing Clemson, FSU while GT plays UGA annually. While other ACC programs get a combo of Duke, Wake, BC and Syracuse for example.

So why drop UofL? Replace UofL with who?
Click to expand...
Did you even watch the Duke v Clemson game? I'd rather play Clemson this year.
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
Did you even watch the Duke v Clemson game? I'd rather play Clemson this year.
Click to expand...
Overreact much based on 1 game? I did watch Clemson fumble twice inside the 5, miss 2 easy FG’s and a bad INT. And you think those same game 1 issues will apply to the game on 11/11? Better yet, any season going forward.

Look I enjoy Clemson-GT annually like everyone else. That said, as a fanbase, GT needs to stop whining about how the ACC is screwing them. UGA, Clemson have been at program high levels for the past decade. Nothing the ACC can do about it. GT doesn’t have the luxury of having rivals who suck like BC, Syracuse, VT, etc do.
 
USCJacket said:
Yeah sure. And then the same fans will complain about how the ACC “screws GT” with a schedule containing Clemson, FSU while GT plays UGA annually. While other ACC programs get a combo of Duke, Wake, BC and Syracuse for example.

So why drop UofL? Replace UofL with who?
Click to expand...
I’ve long been a proponent that the acc needs to worry less about trying to rig matchups on strength and focus on matchups that are interesting and draw attention.
 
savbandjacket said:
I’ve long been a proponent that the acc needs to worry less about trying to rig matchups on strength and focus on matchups that are interesting and draw attention.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. At one point in time, I was in favor of ACC North, ACC South divisions. Problem is, that completely stacks the ACC South with a combo of Clemson, FSU, GT, Miami. While the ACC North would have been a much easier path with BC, Syracuse, UVA, VT, etc. Pitt would have loved that division.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top