Atlantic vs Coastal.

[SchmidtyNole_rivals]

I can't believe how bad the Coastal Division of the ACC is compared to the Atlantic. It has always been that way but I think it is only getting worse.

In the Atlantic you have FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Boston College, NC State and Syracuse that are all good teams capable of competing with the good teams in other conferences. Then you have the Coastal division and you ask yourself "Where are the good teams?" Viriginia, Pitt, Miami, Virginia Tech are all bad football teams.

Duke is pretty good, Georgia Tech has underachieved this year and North Carolina is average. It is just a bad division compared to the Atlantic.

If I had to pick the winner of the Coastal I would go with Duke or UNC.

 

[Hedgerunner]

It certainly has not always been this way. When Miami, V. Tech. and B.C. came into the league the only good team the Atlantic had was FSU. Clemson was border line good and the rest got toasted.

 

[zipp_rivals]

What is the inter-divisional won-lost record so far this year? One thing nice about this debate is there's data...

 

[CardFanBudMan]

It certainly has not always been this way. When Miami, V. Tech. and B.C. came into the league the only good team the Atlantic had was FSU. Clemson was border line good and the rest got toasted.

We have not held up our end of the bargain this year, but Miami and VT really need to become relevant again to make this the conference the best it can be. That will happen, but will require coaching changes.

 

[littleton tiger]

Any possibility of re-aligining the divisions to bring more parity to the conference?

 

[Cards1982]

it's 0-1. Duke over Boston College
10/9 - NC State @ VA Tech
10/10 - Miami @ FSU & GA Tech @ Clemson
10/17 - Syra @ Virginia & Wake @ UNC
10/24 - FSU @ GA Tech, Clemson @ Miami & Pitt @ Syra
10/31 - VA Tech @ BC
11/14 - Virginia @ UofL
11/21 - UofL @ Pitt
11/28 - UNC @ NC State & Duke @ Wake

 

[noleville]

Any possibility of re-aligining the divisions to bring more parity to the conference?

The solution that the ACC presented the NCAA with is to get rid of divisions all together and make 1 division with the top two playing each other in the ACCCG. That was an idea brought about by SU and Pitt's AD's that are unhappy about the length of wait between playing all members. In this solution it would be :

Each team has 2 or 3 permanent rivals they play. All other rotate. SO, with a 14 team conference that would mean that we would play a home and home with the other 10 teams every 4 years instead of 7 now.

Example: FSU: Rivals: Miami, GT, Clemson:
Year 1 & 2: (home and home)
Miami
Clemson
GT
Wake
UL
BC
Pitt
NCST

Year 3 & 4
Miami
Clemson
GT
UNC
Duke
UVA
VT
Either we expand, add Notre Dame or just rotate one of the year 1 & 2 teams here, so it's actually less than 4 year wait.

Point is, now with one rival in the other division it take 12 full years to have a home and home with every team as opposed to 4 or under with the "no division" solution.

 

[beantowncard]

Add ND and another school (?) and go to 16 with 4 4 team divisions, sort of like the NFL. Then home and home each season with division members and 1 opponent in each of the other divisions for 9 conference games. Division winners play a four way playoff for conference title.

 

[NoKyCard]

Add ND and another school (?) and go to 16 with 4 4 team divisions, sort of like the NFL. Then home and home each season with division members and 1 opponent in each of the other divisions for 9 conference games. Division winners play a four way playoff for conference title.

I definitely do not like the idea of playing 3 teams twice in the same season.

 

[NoKyCard]

Also, don't need 16 teams.

The solution that the ACC presented the NCAA with is to get rid of divisions all together and make 1 division with the top two playing each other in the ACCCG. That was an idea brought about by SU and Pitt's AD's that are unhappy about the length of wait between playing all members. In this solution it would be :

Each team has 2 or 3 permanent rivals they play. All other rotate. SO, with a 14 team conference that would mean that we would play a home and home with the other 10 teams every 4 years instead of 7 now.

Example: FSU: Rivals: Miami, GT, Clemson:
Year 1 & 2: (home and home)
Miami
Clemson
GT
Wake
UL
BC
Pitt
NCST

Year 3 & 4
Miami
Clemson
GT
UNC
Duke
UVA
VT
Either we expand, add Notre Dame or just rotate one of the year 1 & 2 teams here, so it's actually less than 4 year wait.

Point is, now with one rival in the other division it take 12 full years to have a home and home with every team as opposed to 4 or under with the "no division" solution.

Your model is just fine without the addition of ND or the need for rotating 1 team in a year early. The reason you think you have a problem is you left one team out of the mix, Syracuse, and you have only 7 teams in your "year 3 & 4" lineup. Just add Syracuse there, and you have a perfectly balanced 4 year rotation.

The problem is, a few schools want to play more than just 3 teams on an annual basis, or they can't agree on which 3 teams should remain as annual foes.

ND would just be a good (P-5, high profile) non-conference matchup every 3 years for all the other football members.

A couple of ways to get it balanced out would be to go to a 9 game conference schedule. Then the 14th team you've left out would

 

[noleville]

You're right I, (like many) completely forgot about the Cuse.