Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

aVoiceInSC — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:37:41 -0000

I am good recently. How are you recently?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

aVoiceInSC — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:15:17 -0000

Thanks. That's the best laugh that I've had in a while.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

ndellobuono — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:48:00 -0000

They should abandon divisions.
Divisions do nothing to help get the best two teams in the conference championship game (ie. Big 12 last year)
Have all 12 teams play rotating schedule keeping rival games.
Top two teams play for the conference title.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

hokieglenn — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:01:36 -0000

Everytime this realignment thing comes up you can find a perfect solution, some rivalry is going to get left out or some aspect won't work. I wish VT played Maryland more.

Virginia Tech T-Shirts

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Regan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:56:53 -0000

I do...someone asked for NC qualifications? :-)

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

RazzMaTazz — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:00 -0000

I never really thought of BC as a really good academic school but I just looked up the average SAT scores and it looks like BC is distant second to Duke but very similar to Wake, UVA, and GT in academics. (Interestingly, if Duke were in the Ivy League, academically Duke would be about tied with Dartmouth for the 4th best school behind Harvard, Yale, & Princeton.) If SoCar were to join the ACC, it would be the weakest ACC school academically (as would USF if it were to join). Navy is one of the most selective schools in the country, but in terms of SAT scores, it looks like they'd be middle of the pack for the ACC. However, I think Navy would bring down the football & basketball competitiveness of the ACC, so I wouldn't want to swap them for BC.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

RazzMaTazz — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:57:56 -0000

Oops. I just looked at a map. I didn't realize that Wake is in Winston-Salem. So a geographic Coastal-Atlantic split would look like:
Coastal: Miami, NCSU, Duke, UMD, UVA, & BC.
Atlantic (or more inland): FSU, Clemson, GT, UNC, Wake, & VT.

Coastal would be way stronger than the Atlantic. Bad idea.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

RazzMaTazz — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:47:30 -0000

Geographically, technically (nitpickingly) Wake & Duke would be in the North, and UNC & NCSU would be in the South. That would necessitate Duke and UNC being permanent rivals.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

vtmechE — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:11 -0000

one of my friends started a playoff proposal, with some radical changes in terms of conference alignments and who was where, keeping geographical proximity a priority, BC doesn't belong in the acc is kinda a trick, b/c 1. bc has the academics, and 2. they have the athletics, thy do not have a strong or travelling strong fan base, nor do they have the geographical proximity,

however, they have the academics, and in order to exchange bc with another southern school, one would have to look at 1. navy (20 mins. from umd), 2. take someone from the sec, south carolina gets my vote, or 3. get a southern fcs school with the academics, cuz those sec schools won't give up the money they make from cbs, usf, ecu, and ucf (the other possibilities) don't have the academics, navy gets my vote, not only do they have the academics and the fans, but they also don't have to deal with separating from another conference, plus lacrosse would benefit, and so too would mens soccer, which the acc has strength nationally, basketball would suffer, but i don't think it'll be a big deal

i like the north south divisions clemson joe posted, switching bc for navy

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Porcine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:19:22 -0000

I agree. As I posted above. the divisions are fairly equal.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Porcine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:12:07 -0000

Notre Dame.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

aVoiceInSC — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:41:19 -0000

Call me crazy, but I still like the North-South geographical alignment. I really think it would make for stronger rivalries in the future, and a better "divisional sense" like other conferences have.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

RazzMaTazz — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:44:13 -0000

We could take all of the schools that are close to the Atlantic coast (and closer than the other in-state ACC schools) and put them together in the coastal division. Without looking at a map, I think that gives us.
Coastal: Miami, NCSU, Wake, UMD, UVA, & BC.
Atlantic (or more inland): FSU, Clemson, GT, UNC, Duke, & VT.

That's still likely to leave the Atlantic a lot stronger than the Coastal but it's not a terrible split. Then again, it's not really any better.

The one thing that I think is weird about the ACC is that, in order to preserve some traditional rivalries while creating similarly competitive divisions, the ACC created annual out-of-division "permanent rivals" which create permanent unfairness. For example, in the Atlantic division, Wake gets to play (Coastal) Duke every year (which is practically a guaranteed win) whereas Clemson has to play (Coastal) GT every year, which is a 50-50 proposition. Therefore Wake has a perennial advantage over Clemson to win the Atlantic Division.

The ACC could have avoided that problem by putting rivals in the same divsion. To be honest, I'm not sure who everybody's rivals are, but if I had to take a whack at it, I think it would look something like this. All the NC schools are rivals of each other. Clemson & GT. UVA & VT & maybe UMD. BC & Miami, and Miami & FSU. So a rivalry split (and an abandonment of the unfair "permanent rivals" scheduling) could be something like:
Coastal: UMD, UVA, VT, BC, Miami, FSU.
Atlantic: NCSU, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson, GT.

Of course that makes the Coastal a lot stronger than the Atlantic, and it prevents the possibility of the FSU-Miami dream match-up championship game were those two schools to return to power.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

VTBobb — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:18:28 -0000

Who, me?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

VTBobb — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:15:37 -0000

So do you believe you should have to win your conference to be considered for the NC?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

ndellobuono — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:33:39 -0000

Divisions are the problem in large conferences.
By having divisions, they are ensuring themselves of not having the best teams play thereby hurting the BCS chances of having#1 vs #2 play.

IE. Last year, the Big 12 had Okl vs Missouri in their title game.
Missouri was at least the 5th best team in the conference.
They got a crap matchup which hurt ratings and did nothing to solve their BCS mess between Texas and OKL. The game should have served as a defacto playoff game elimating a team from BCS discussion.

Another example- Two years ago SEC had LSU and Ten in the game. Ga was ranked in the top 10 and had a better record than Tennessee. Ten won the division and played in the title game. Last year thru luck, the SEC got the best two teams in Florida and Alabama. They got a great rating and helped to clear up some of the national title picture.

The divisions should be thrown out. The top two teams in the conference play in the conference title game serving as potential elimination games for the BCS.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Zac — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:31:18 -0000

So, does this not put a damper on the driving convenience you discussed in another thread?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Zac — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:30:24 -0000

"Damn mid-westerner..."

Hense the word "plain".

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

VTBobb — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:53:19 -0000

What I really want to know is who is the Small 1?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

aVoiceInSC — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:26:02 -0000

I don't really understand this confusion. The conference is named the Atlantic Coast Conference. The divisions are not geographical, hence the Atlantic, and Coast(al).

Now, please explain to me why the Big Televen can't count.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

War_Eagle_Atlanta — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:20:37 -0000

Hell no, BB. Of course, we couldn't expect a guy from a landlocked (ocean) state to realize that...

Damn mid-westerner...

:-)

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

badgerballer — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:15:41 -0000

I just plain need help with the divisional terms. I mean, aren't "Atlantic" and "Coastal" synonymous?

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

NMLSooner — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:10:37 -0000

Exchange Boston College and South Florida with the Big East
North Division: Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke
South DIvision: Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, South Florida, Miami, Fla.

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Ramblin' Gator — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:08:47 -0000

For what it's worth, I personally don't agree with the line of thinking that wants FSU and Miami in the ACC championship game every year - and not for the obvious reason.

The Southwest Conference fell apart when Arkansas left and it became a state of Texas-only conference. If the ACC championship was reduced to the same two teams from the same state in the title game most years, the ACC would fall (farther?) from significance.

Besides, I want GT in the title game every year. :-)

Re: ACC looking at divisional realignment?

Porcine — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:14:16 -0000

For the halibut I used your divisional scenario and applied it to last season's results. This is how it would have ended up.

North Con Div Overall
Boston College 5-3 2-1 9-5
Virginia Tech 5-3 4-1 10-4
Maryland 4-4 1-3 8-5
North Carolina 4-4 2-3 8-5
Virginia 3-5 2-2 5-7
Duke 1-7 1-2 4-8

South
Georgia Tech 5-3 3-0 9-4
Florida State 5-3 3-2 9-4
NC State 4-4 2-2 6-7
Wake Forest 4-4 2-2 8-5
Clemson 4-4 1-3 7-6
Miami 4-4 1-3 7-6

I used head-to-head and divisional records as tie-breakers. It looks like a BC-GT title bout.
Edit: I put spaces in there, but alas.