- This topic has 6 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good God this could be a can of controversy!!
On Dec. 7 Florida State beat Duke 45-7 to win the ACC Championship. Both teams were in Charlotte because they won their respective divisions, though if ACC commissioner John Swofford gets his way, that won’t be how the ACC decides its champion in the future.
Swofford told ESPN.com that he would prefer the conferences have “the autonomy” to determine its conference champion, rather than having to follow the current NCAA guidelines. Swofford’s main concern seems to be scheduling now that the ACC has expanded to 14 schools, with how often teams from different divisions will meet.
If given his way Swofford says the ACC would consider having the two teams with the best record in the ACC play for the conference championship, not necessarily the division champions. Which means this season Florida State would have played Clemson instead of Duke, and last year Florida State and Clemson would have met again rather than the Seminoles facing a 6-6 Georgia Tech squad.
Which, honestly, makes sense, but here’s where things start getting weird.
Swofford says the ACC could keep its divisions, though teams would not be required to play every single opponent in their division each season. Which begs the question of why the ACC would keep the divisions if they will play no role in determining the conference champion or its schedule? If the ACC is allowed to move in this direction just get rid of the divisions and treat it like basketball.
In basketball there aren’t divisions, and schools will play some teams twice a season and others only once. In football, if the ACC desires, it can just be one 14-team conference in which schools play eight or nine conference opponents — which is something else the league will decide soon enough — and don’t play the rest, with schedules rotating from season to season. You know, exactly how it was before the conference title game came into existence.
It would make more sense than keeping the divisions for no reason.
Could this be the first step towards more of a ‘pod system’ rather than full on divisions?
With 14 teams you could actually do 3 different pods while you wait on Notre Dame to go full time and bring in a 16 team.
One
State
UNC-CH
Duke
WakeTwo
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Virginia Tech
VirginiaThree
Louisville
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Florida State
MiamiI like the proposal. I like SF’s pods, too. Keeps a flavor of regional interest, and aids in travel costs.
As to why the keeping of divisions?
…Unx could present meaningless championship rings to the boys again.Meaningless???
I bet they didn’t think they were meaningless when they started hocking them for weed money.
LOL Wuf. You had me searching for a “like” button. You have also given me some ideas for a lot of the extra stuff I have laying around the house…
Who in their right mind would want to actually buy a “Division Champions” ring stamped with “8-4?” A Raleigh sports bar that wanted to showcase it for comedy’s sake?
As for mucking around with the conference championship game, how about balancing the two divisions so that one is not weak sauce year in and year out. Put Clemson and FSU opposite each other, which has the added bonus of making UNC and VT actually play a good team. Bring Miami over to the Atlantic to replace the lost member.
Or better, put the original 7 in one division and all the other ACC schools in the other.
“put the original 7 in one division”
Of the original 8 which 7 did you have in mind? South Carolina went independent then to the SEC and now Maryland is going B1G. I suppose GT could fill in for SC or MD. I do like the concept. FSU and CU would be in opposite groups and all the original rivals would still play one another.
The alignment would create a basketball heavy division and a football heavy division. Well, it could if Duke, State and *nc got their mess together. Or maybe the original 6 or 7 would be so bad in both football and basketball that it would not work out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
