Report: Notre Dame in Talks to Join ACC as Full Member

[Pat125]

ACC teams already have a permanent crossover...a must do to preserve rivalries like FSU-Miami, North Carolina-NC State. Then add in a permanent in-state SEC rival like FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and GT have and Notre Dame every third year and there is not much room

Anyhoo...the Big Ten submitted a amendment that altered the proposed legislation that would allow a conference to match its two strongest teams...to one that left the current legislation almost intact...except letting a conference play a full round robin (Big 12 rule) and match the two best teams....

There will be no pods....not in the next 10 years.

From ESPN....

But what is most interesting is how this whole process played out. Most folks nationally shrugged their shoulders when the ACC first proposed the deregulation idea. What changed between March 2014 and November 2015, when the Big Ten decided the bigger conferences would be better off keeping a division format? While it is understandable that commissioners like Delany want as much uniformity as possible among Power 5 conferences, there is no way to get there.

Not when the SEC, ACC and Big Ten have 14 members, the Pac-12 has 12 and the Big 12 has 10.

Not when the SEC and ACC stay at eight conference games and the others have nine.

Not when the ACC has a unique scheduling partnership with Notre Dame. Not when the ACC and SEC have built in cross-conference rivalries that must always be played. Not when scheduling philosophies differ from conference to conference (to play or not to play FCS, that is the question!)

So what if the ACC wanted to potentially get rid of divisions somewhere down the line as a way to play league teams more often and determine its championship game the way it wants? In December, Delany told ESPN.com’s Heather Dinich, “I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.”


That would be pods.

You seem to have a penchant for completely missing the point in posts you respond to. The two of us who mentioned pods mentioned it in the context of having two divisions in which each division's teams play each other. And the division winners play in the championship game. No semi-finals, no wild cards, etc. The only difference is that divisions change every year (or every other year). This does not appear to violate the current rules, and you made no attempt to show that was the case. Everything you quoted did not address the points we made and repeated information we already knew. The other point you blew off was that the crossover rivalries are preserved in my sample "pods." In fact, they wouldn't even be crossover. Again, for the umpeenth time, there will still be two divisions.

 

[billybud]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

 

[SubZero]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

 

[dayooper]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

In idealistic college sports world, you are correct. The problem is we don't live in an idealistic world. We live in a world where sexual assault is covered up, prostitutes are used to recruit kids (to the point where they are almost forced on a kid), team Doctors are allowed free reign with any checks or balances, streroid use is rampant, kids are given thousands of dollars to play for schools, universities provide classes where you don't have to go to class or do anything and a governing body that has little or no power to investigate. Pardon me if I don't think these schools and conferences can't trust themselves.

Swofford should have laid his rules out on how the CCG participants would have been chosen. As far as we know, he didnt. Just as I wouldn't trust Jim Delany, Larry Scott, or any conference commissioner, I wouldn't trust Swofford.

You bring up the 1999 Rose Bowl. While the Big10 wasn't trying to get two teams in the Rose Bowl, I'll explain that situation. It was standard procedure at that time (going back to when the only bowl game allowed was the Rose Bowl) that when there was a tie, the team that hadn't been to the Rose Bowl the longest got to go. There was a three way tie between Michigan, OSU and Wisconsin. Head to head didn't work because Michigan beat Wisconsin and OSU beat Michigan. Wisconsin and OSU didn't play. SinceMichigan had gone the year prior and OSU had gone the year before, Wisconsin was the choice. The last time Wisconsin went was 1994.

 

[Pat125]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

I assume you mean football. Anyway, my point here had nothing to do with whether my team will ever get to a football conference championship game in the Big Ten, although I hope that will happen in my lifetime. I do my best to not be shameless in plugging my team on another board, but if my participation in this discussion went over the line, I will not particpate in this discussion further, and apologize if I did.

 

[Pat125]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

Assuming that you really do understand now, then I would be interested in hearing why my proposal is worse than the cuurent ACC scheduling. Or if you still think it will be not allowed, please provide a link that shows that divisions cannot be changed from year to year. Thanks.

 

[dayooper]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

Just as an FYI, I think Maryland will be competitive in the Big10 East in a couple of years. DJ Durkin can coach and recruit. If he stays at Maryland, they will be a good team with the talent that's available there. If Durkin leaves, all bets are off.

 

[billybud]

Assuming that you really do understand now, then I would be interested in hearing why my proposal is worse than the cuurent ACC scheduling. Or if you still think it will be not allowed, please provide a link that shows that divisions cannot be changed from year to year. Thanks.

And I would like you to tell me why, other than some moralistic preaching, having just the two teams highest in the standings play in the CCG can't be done. Leaves flexibility.

Can't be any worse than..."hey, it's our turn, you guys went last" when a conference could decide who represented as champion in the Rose.

One problem with your illustration is that you would have Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and VT playing together in a division every other year...the powerhouse football teams in the same division. It probably was off your head...but it would make a very uneven field.

The Atlantic vs Coastal is already off balance with FSU, Clemson, and Louisville.

It's preseason and there is no real measures that exist preseason...but using the ESPN 2017 Power Index...

#4, #7, #14, #16...the highest power ranking ACC teams...would play in the same division....along with #31 and #37.

If, that year, you are Duke, Wake, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse and BC in the other division....your chances of playing in the ACC CCG are really enhanced. Just like they would be in the Big Ten if you could skip both Ohio State and Michigan.

It is a system almost designed to put a weaker team in the CCG.

 

[Pat125]

And I would like you to tell me why, other than some moralistic preaching, having just the two teams highest in the standings play in the CCG can't be done. Leaves flexibility.

Can't be any worse than..."hey, it's our turn, you guys went last" when a conference could decide who represented as champion in the Rose.

One problem with your illustration is that you would have Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and VT playing together in a division every other year...the powerhouse football teams in the same division. It probably was off your head...but it would make a very uneven field.

The Atlantic vs Coastal is already off balance with FSU, Clemson, and Louisville.

It's preseason and there is no real measures that exist preseason...but using the ESPN 2017 Power Index...

#4, #7, #14, #16...the highest power ranking ACC teams...would play in the same division....along with #31 and #37.

If, that year, you are Duke, Wake, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse and BC in the other division....your chances of playing in the ACC CCG are really enhanced. Just like they would be in the Big Ten if you could skip both Ohio State and Michigan.

It is a system almost designed to put a weaker team in the CCG.

Now that you addressed my point and not strawmen, I am happy to respond to your point. First of all, I get your point that you believe my proposal will be worse. Fair enough. Maybe my proposal could be adjusted to have more balance while maintaing protected rivalries. Perhaps the ACC tried and could not get sufficient agreement. In the meantime, it kind of sucks that some conference teams only get to play each other every six years, just like the SEC.

Now to your point. As far as I know, the conference gets to decide tiebreaking procedures for division winners, just as they have decided tiebreaking procedures for conference winners before there were divisions. So I don't see what your issue is there. I personally do not have a problem with your proposals. For example, they can get rid of divisions, allowing for more flexible scheduling, and have the top two play each other. Or have three divisions, and the top two division winners play each other. At least if there are concrete additional models proposed, you have a better chance of two other commissioners going along with you.

I agree with the majority of the P5 commissioners who don't want to be surprised with some inane way of choosing a conference champion. Otherwise, should a nonconference member like Notre Dame be eligible for an ACC championship? If so, could they eligible for the BIg Ten championship if they go 2-0 against the Big Ten? I think there needs to be some control.