It's the way to go; far more versatility in scheduling and value for the spectator. https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ions-format-permanent-rivalries-starting-2023. Of course, variations are possible.
ACC Ditching Divisions
- Thread starter KingWard
- Start date
Protecting the match-ups their fan bases want (for the most part). That makes good sense.
Last edited:
Totally in favor of this.
I believe the PAC-12 and Mountain West have also announced the same format, I have very little doubt this will be the format de rigueur within 2 years.
I believe the PAC-12 and Mountain West have also announced the same format, I have very little doubt this will be the format de rigueur within 2 years.
I understand the rationale, but 16 teams in one "division" is clunky.
But, there's no great solution to a crappy situation. Sometimes you just gotta slap a bandaid on it.
Everyone wants to make it the NFL, so go with four 4 team divisions.
But, there's no great solution to a crappy situation. Sometimes you just gotta slap a bandaid on it.
Everyone wants to make it the NFL, so go with four 4 team divisions.
Last edited:
What do you mean by "one division"? There is/are no division/divisions. The divisional abandoned is vacated and the two teams with the most championship points - however they are derived - will play in the championship game.
I'm a fan and I don't like it as much. As I've said before, if divisions made sense when conferences had 12 teams, they make even more sense when conferences have 16 teams. Being the winner of an 8-team division is something worth pursuing. Overall, I think fewer teams will now have something to play for in the last couple of weeks of the season.
Additionally, as I've pointed out before, scrapping divisions makes it less likely, not more, that a conference can get 2 teams into a 4-team playoff. And if the 4-team playoff is about to give way to an 8-team or 12-team playoff, then scrap the championship games altogether.
Additionally, as I've pointed out before, scrapping divisions makes it less likely, not more, that a conference can get 2 teams into a 4-team playoff. And if the 4-team playoff is about to give way to an 8-team or 12-team playoff, then scrap the championship games altogether.
That won't happen in the SEC or the Big 10. Those games are moneymakers. Networks pay well for them.
I'm not in agreement with this premise, If a conference has the 2 best teams in the conference play for the championship, I don't agree how this format is inherently inferior to a game between 2 division champions.
In any event there is very little doubt that with 4 conferences now will be using this format, more will follow if not all.
I don't recall them playing in the acc championship last year...... but I do pay less attention to the ACC overall
I thought you were just making stuff up for a second. Took me quite a while to remember Notre Dame and Pitt
No they were not, but if the new format was in play they still would have had 2 conference losses while Wake had only one. It would not have mattered or benefitted Clemson.
But back to your original comment, Clemson will be a factor for the ACC championship for the foreseeable future no matter how the ACC determines its champion.
Just using terminology from the article you linked: "The plans for a shift back to a single-division format..." Of course, I took some artistic license and changed "single-division" to "one division", but I think the terms are interchangeable.
Last edited:
Everyone wants to emulate the FCS playoff system, so shouldn't we also emulate them for conference structure and alignment?
It would be foolish to try implementing an FCS style playoff when the overall structures are not at all comparable.
It would be foolish to try implementing an FCS style playoff when the overall structures are not at all comparable.
Ok, and how does this relate to scheduling and who plays for the ACCG.
I'll hang up and listen
Both of them are wrong. If the army only had a single unit, whatever they called it, it wouldn't be "division". When the major leagues only had eight teams each, they didn't call the leagues "divisions". They only used the term "divisions" when they sub-divided.
You may disagree with the semantics, but I know you fully understand what is meant by "single-division".
I understand completely what is meant, but the terminology is faulty. Without an operative divisional concept, the term is moot. This is the proper perspective. https://www.altoonamirror.com/sports/local-sports/2022/06/acc-divisions-going-away-after-2022/
This would negate our only SEC football accomplishment to date -- winning the SEC-East one year.
I will never say "never", but when the SEC adopts the same format (and I have no doubt they will), ask your self this question. What are the odds we will be one of the top 2 in the conference to play for the SECCG.
Any number of remaining lifetimes to choose from on this board.
The SEC will be doing it. Probably considered it for a long time, but operating from a position of strength and only 14 teams, they could afford to stick. But with the number of teams the league will soon have, the new arrangement will hold sway and be welcome by most people. Folks like to see different teams and travel to different places. This will promote that.
Doesn't divisional play with rotation through the rest of the conference do the same thing? But a more rapid rotation is needed (home and home and move to the next team).
Divisional play does the same thing much slower than people are now willing to go. Divisional play that divides the league in half is dead in the biggest conferences. Too many opponents that you have to play every year. That's over with.
I would almost certainly be precluded from ever seeing it.Any number of remaining lifetimes to choose from on this board.
Get unlimited access today.