2012.02.04
Some thoughts on the ACC’s divisional alignment, scheduling format for when Pittsburgh, Syracuse join
Here’s today story about how the ACC will format its division and scheduling once Pittsburgh and Syracuse join the league at a time to be determined.
That was a straight news story, so I didn’t opine any on the subject, but that’s what the blog is for. Some thoughts …
* It seems like the best way for the conference to address adding two teams (and I’m talking strictly from a football sense here). Yes, the divisions are screwy and nobody outside the ACC (and many fans of the league, too) have a hard time keeping them straight, but to reshuffle them after establishing them for seven years would have only caused more confusion. You have to let something build over time. Hitting the reset button on it at this point would have just started that process over again. No need to do that.
* Virginia Tech probably comes out the happiest with the way the divisions shook out. The Hokies did not, under any circumstances, want a North-South arrangement. It would have been like getting the old Big East gang back together, which is the conference they chose to leave behind nearly a decade ago. There was a reason for that. They want to play the North Carolina teams, an easy trip for fans, and go to Florida every year, partly to establish a recruiting presence in those states. By keeping the current divisional alignment — and yearly matchups with Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Miami — I’m sure Virginia Tech is quite pleased.
* Putting Pittsburgh in the Coastal Division is probably what Virginia Tech wanted to hear too. That’s an old Big East rivalry that seems like a good one to revive (better than Syracuse, I’d say). It’s a little under six hours from Blacksburg to Pittsburgh (right inside that recruiting radius that Frank Beamer likes to tout) and is in a pretty good part of Pennsylvania for football talent (an important area of the country given the shakeup at Penn State). It never hurts a team to have visibility in an area like that. Comparing that to Syracuse (nearly a 10-hour drive), it’s also a heck of a lot more convenient for fans wanting to make that trip.
* The Boston College crossover rivalry remains, which is probably a good thing. The teams have met every year but one since 1993. The only option I’ve seen that would have satisfied Tech fans would be for Syracuse to be in the Coastal and Pittsburgh to be the crossover rivalry. In the actual setup, the Hokies still get that yearly matchup with Pitt. BC and Syracuse as a yearly rival, I’d say, is a wash.
* As for nine conference games, it’s a good idea. It creates an awkward situation with half the league’s teams getting five home games in a given season and the other half only getting four, an inequality I’m sure will cause some fan bases to cry foul when they’re on the short end (nevermind that it will go the other way the following season). But eight games just wouldn’t have cut it in the current setup, which requires six games against teams in the division and one against an established crossover rival. That would only leave one game to rotate among the other five teams in the opposite division, meaning a 10-year cycle to get to everybody in a home and home. Why even be in the same conference if you don’t see a team for eight or more years? This way at least keeps the time between matchups against rotating crossover opponents to a six-year cycle (meaning two matchups with those teams every six years). A nine-game schedule makes the best of an inherently difficult scheduling problem.
* I do worry about what this does to future non-conference schedules. I’ve seen a lot of folks tweet that this means teams can’t load up on easy opponents in their non-conference slate. I’d disagree. I think it’ll mean fewer marquee matchups with other BCS teams. It’s already to the point where teams rarely play more than one big non-conference game, but with nine conference games eating up three-fourths of the schedule, how many coaches are going to want to add a big-time non-conference foe too? I think they will be especially loathe to do that if the NCAA raises the requirement to seven wins for bowl eligibility.
* I’m curious how this affects Virginia Tech’s future scheduling and have not had a chance to talk to athletic director Jim Weaver about it yet. Virginia Tech has non-conference games scheduled in 2014-15 against Ohio State and 2016-17 against Wisconsin. Two things might put that series with the Badgers at risk. The Big Ten joins the ACC in going to nine conference games in 2017. Additionally, the Big Ten begins a scheduling partnership with the Pac-12 that year that will pair off all 12 of their teams. So for Wisconsin, that means a schedule that has nine Big Ten teams, a Pac-12 team (the agreement will match up teams of equal strength, so just say Oregon if the teams wanted to re-do this year’s Rose Bowl) and Virginia Tech, with one spot left for a patsy. That is brutal. And I don’t think any major college team (except maybe LSU) would put itself through that kind of meat grinder.
* Just for the Hokies, let’s say the nine-game schedule starts in 2013 (seems like a decent chance, given all the lawsuits going on). They have Alabama, Pittsburgh, Marshall and Western Carolina contracted that year. It’s a pretty easy fix. The non-conference game against Pittsburgh just becomes a conference game and voila, the schedule’s the same. The 2014 schedule has only three non-league game scheduled, so that’s easy to work with too. But in 2015-16, it would require canceling an existing matchup. The Hokies’ marquee non-conference matchup those years are Ohio State (2015) and Wisconsin (2016). The second toughest game on the schedule in each of those years is East Carolina, with the rest of the spots taken up by Akron and Furman in 2015 and Western Kentucky and Western Michigan in 2016. Somebody’s got to go to make room for another ACC team, so it will be interesting to see what direction Tech goes.
Any thoughts out there on the subject?
Sphere: Related Content
I wish VT would have gone to the SEC when it had its chance. Few teams in the ACC, especially the additions of those NE schools care about football or travel well. Imagine the atmosphere in Lane each year had Tennesse, Georgia, Florida, Alambama or South Carolina come in. Those teams travel with 10 to 15 fans minimum and would have caused Lane to expand and fed the local economny. Syracuse will bring 7 fans…yawn. VT is a southern football school, not a basketball, lacrosse or rowing school. I loved the ACC before they expanded north. VT is/was a better fit for the SEC in my opinion.
Comment by VT SEC — February 4, 2012 @ 11:01 am
You’re absolutely dead on about the impact of the 9 game schedules. There will no longer be any decent non-conference matchups. About the most compelling will be those Big 10/Pac 12 pairings each year. With a little luck, maybe the SEC and ACC will get together and do the same, given the common sizes of the conferences.
The other thing you don’t mention is that imbalance in the schedule, how it impacts the scheduling. In years where Tech (or anybody else) has just 4 conference home games, you can be guaranteed that 2 of the 3 non conference games will be at home, and having to do that means a lot of money games against smaller programs, because it would become increasingly more difficult to match up open slots with quality teams. People don’t seem to get that complexity, as it exists now. They have this attitude Team A should play Team B . . . . well, what if they don’t have openings at the same time?
The only thing I see that would make scheduling good non-conference teams compelling would be a playoff system where conference champs get in. That way, a couple of non-conference losses don’t hurt your chances of getting in, or getting a fair shot.
Tech did come out well in this, getting Pitt back. That’s a great trip to make. Nice city, nice stadium, you get the finger about 100 times as you drive through Morgantown. You simply can’t beat it.
Comment by Rick H. — February 4, 2012 @ 11:27 am
I for one, as an older Hokie fan, welcome Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC. If for no other reason than nostalgia value, the revival of these old rivalries will add something to the league. Pitt has always had at least one player every year that has given the Hokies fits (Larry Fitzgerald) and I’ll never forget Donovan McNabb’s game winning last second touchdown in ’98, still gives me that sick feeling just thinking about it. I like the 9 game schedule as well. It makes more sense to play a stronger in-conference slate (ala the SEC) than what we have been doing. I hope that Weaver keeps the stronger OOC opponents on the schedule if for no other reason than Tech seems to take a lot more flack than other schools for scheduling “creampuffs” already. As to VT going to the SEC, I personally feel that the ACC is where we belong. I think that Hokie fans should keep a close eye on Texas A&M for the next few years. A&M’s success or failure in the SEC should be a good indicator of how the Hokies would have fared with such a move. My personal feeling is that the Aggies will end up on the level of a Mississippi State or Kentucky rather than up with the Gators and Tide. That string of 10 win seasons that we all know and love would be a tough road in SEC country.
Comment by Dan — February 4, 2012 @ 11:53 am
Gotta disagree with VT better have gone with SEC. Hokies are located in the new “heart” of the ACC. That is better for travel and for recruiting. Would be on the outer reaches of the SEC, and though they travel well within the deep south, not so sure Alabama, LSU, Miss (Both), Fla. or Auburn would be so comfortable driving to the mountains of western Va. in the dead of winter. I live in Atlanta now, and know the difference between Blacksburg in November and down here. Not only that, but we don’t match up too well with established powerhouses of SEC football. So long ten wins and a BCS bid with our current schedule and “hello” seven wins and a possible Independence Bowl trip!
Comment by Ken Hufman — February 4, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
When Boston College joined the league, it stretched the league’s footprint from South Beach to Boston, which made no sense geographically, until Swofford raided the Big East and added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. With the new addition from the Mid-Atlantic region, it gives Boston College a natural geographical rivalry in either Pittsburgh, Syracuse, or both.
From a basketball standpoint, it increases the balance of power. Up to that point, it has been Duke and North Carolina and the rest of the league just plays catch ups. This season might be an aberration with how well Florida State has played lately. Syracuse bring it’s basketball power and brand and Pittsburgh, if they ever settle down and start playing blue collar they were always known for, should make this a four way battle royale for the #1 spot in the ACC with Duke and North Carolina.
I agree, Andy, nobody is ever going to be happy with arrangement in whatever divisions the ACC creates.
One thing I am curious about after reading the nine game in-conference scenario, would this might force the NCAA step in and change the length of the season from 12 games to 13? I realize this would probably make the season longer than it should, and I realize coaches and athletic directors would strenuously object to something like that. I just wanted to put it out there.
Comment by Trevor — February 4, 2012 @ 12:38 pm
If the conference does what is correct and fair, in alternating years, all Coastal teams would have 5 home games, and all Atlantic teams would have 4 home games. The next year, it would be the opposite.
Comment by Erroll Doss — February 4, 2012 @ 12:50 pm
Dan, I will never forget the McNabb play in 1998 either. I was in The Carrier Dome that day just sitting there while everyone one else was on their feet cheering away. Someone tapped me on the shoulder. I looked up and a nice old lady asked me If I could tell her who made the winning catch. Good thing she was hard of hearing. Was also in the end zone that Matt Ryan threw to a couple of years ago. At least misery had company that day.
Comment by Ralph — February 4, 2012 @ 2:07 pm
It would be relatively easy to get all Coastal and all Atlantic teams on the same page for the number of home and away games. In the first year of the schedule, have all the Coastal teams host their Atlantic counterpart in the inter-divisional rivalry game. The following year the Atlantic team would be the home team. Since these are yearly games, rotating home and away would maintain the 5/4 or 4/5 home/away split. The six games played within the division would obviously be split 3/3 and the 2 other inter-divisional games split 1/1 as well.
Comment by Greg Bowyer — February 4, 2012 @ 2:17 pm
Yeah Ralph, I always thought it was strange that the Matt Ryan TD was almost a photo negative of the McNabb throw (opposite corner of the endzone). At least VT got a bit of revenge on Ryan. Going back to the Pitt rivalry, I can also remember Antonio Bryant ripping the defense up pretty good, and then later Larry Fitzgerald. Sammy Watkins from Clemson last season reminded me of those two…in a bad way for us, in a great way for him.
Comment by Dan — February 4, 2012 @ 7:24 pm
With these two teams joining the ACC the conference seems to be set in a good position for the present time and for the near future.
Everybody needs to accept this as it is and live with it.
Virginia Tech did not and does not need to be a member of the SEC. There are many reasons for that and those reasons have been stated many times and in many places.
Let’s go Hokies !!!
Comment by Frank — February 5, 2012 @ 7:44 am
I think the nine conference game schedule will effectively kill the bulk of quality OOC scheduling. You can forget about all the B1G teams playing VT now. That will not happen at all. The absolute best the fan base can hope for is one quality BCS opponent – that doesn’t mean Vandy or Indiana! – every other year. That translates into once every four years, you’d get a quality OOC opponent at home.
It guarantees a steady diet of FCS, MAC, & CUSA opponents. I’m not terribly disturbed by that. I don’t like it, but it is an easy win, and the tailgating is always fun.
I’ve seen some Hokie fans complain on other boards that UMd is not in our division, with UVa being a cross division rival. Of course, the ONLY people I’ve seen complain about that are ones who do not have season tickets and who live in NoVa. They just are looking for an easy game to drive to without having to drive back to Bburg for a game.
The future? Seven home games one year, six the next. One quality OOC opponent comes to Bburg every Presidential election cycle. Pitt & BC were the old Big East opponents who challenged us the most, so I’m fine with continuing or building on rivalries with them. It really sounds like the quality OOC games might be neutral site games, too.
All in all, VT came out about as well as possible.
Comment by crooked road — February 5, 2012 @ 8:23 am
One more thing, the whole idea that VT going to the SEC would be a benefit is incorrect. Sure, the SEC has great football. That is all they have. Nothing else they have to offer is as good as what the ACC offers. Every non-revenue sport, VT fits better in the ACC. Even in basketball, VT fits better in the ACC. Travel expenses, geographic similarity, fan base locations, everything is better in the ACC.
Comment by crooked road — February 6, 2012 @ 8:18 am