ACC close to eliminating Divisions soon (LINK)
Link:
Divisions gone soon !?!?
82 Replies
They should also go to 9 conference games, but they won't.
I like the move - make UVA our dedicated rival and ditch BC - they can play Cuse.
(In response to this post by Stech)
4y
flexibility on how it does its OOC schedule. Remember most power conference schools believe they need to play a minimum of 7 home games every year for financial reasons. For years when a team plays 5 away conference games, that means they can't play an away OOC game too and still be able to play 7 home games unless they are willing to play a 13th game @Hawai'i. If a team is negotiating a future home-home series with another school that also plays 9 conference games, then that could really limit which years the games are played in. Likewise, it could even lead to scheduling more home games against G5 or DI-FCS opponents because they have more flexibility on when they can play away games.
That's why an even number of conference games is always better than an odd number of conference games.
That's why an even number of conference games is always better than an odd number of conference games.
(In response to this post by Mr. Touchdown)
D
daveinop
4y
I think they want more intersectional diversity. All 3 "Alliance" conferences will likely go to 8 conference games and two OOC Alliance games. That will leave 2 flex spots on the schedule to accommodate rivalries or buying a home game.
Also won't surprise me to see a 10 "P5" game type scheduling requirement to redefine the top tier of college football and qualify for a future playoff. That will give the participating conferences much more certainty regarding their post season outlook and income.
Also won't surprise me to see a 10 "P5" game type scheduling requirement to redefine the top tier of college football and qualify for a future playoff. That will give the participating conferences much more certainty regarding their post season outlook and income.
(In response to this post by Mr. Touchdown)
M
Mercury
4y
This means acc has pre greased the other conferences and will be fast tract.
Maybe first of restructure actions in ncaa
.. maybe also adding a team to 5 member pods football and 16 basketball
Maybe first of restructure actions in ncaa
.. maybe also adding a team to 5 member pods football and 16 basketball
(In response to this post by Stech)
4y
following and influence with the DOD and Capitol Hill.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
I say West Virginia. I dont think espn wants the Big 12 but wants properties they like just like the old Big East. ND will be 16 if Espn can make them an offer they cant refuse. If not they stay at 15 and reopen the contact with 1 new member, 2 alliance games per team, and no divisions.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
someone like WVU? ACC got a very modest bump when Pitt/Syracuse came but that was in conjunction with Notre Dame football agreement.
Regarding ACC’s intentions nothing wrong with current member set in one division. Top 2 play in conference championship game. Diluting ACC even further to say we have “pods†has the feel of all the past addition mistakes.
Regarding ACC’s intentions nothing wrong with current member set in one division. Top 2 play in conference championship game. Diluting ACC even further to say we have “pods†has the feel of all the past addition mistakes.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
M
Mercury
4y
WIth the alliance, ACC gets converage when they play at Big 10 venues (FOX).
Throw this one out, if ACC and Big 10 and PAC 12 firm up into a mega organization. The existing contracts will have have to rebid. and you can bet the contract will be split between Fox and ESPN.
Throw this one out, if ACC and Big 10 and PAC 12 firm up into a mega organization. The existing contracts will have have to rebid. and you can bet the contract will be split between Fox and ESPN.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
4y
Replacing 24 cupcakes a year with Pac 12 Big 10 matchups. Eliminating boring mandatory repetitive conference matchups with more rilvalry games and primetime games. Remember Big 10 and Pac were previously getting paid for 9 conference games vs ACC 8. The ACC figured out 8 + 2 is better than 9. This is a huge difference in content then what we currently have.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
4y
Be pushed into TV sets across the country. ESPN can then grab the 2 tier+ games. And if they don't like it, 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
M
Mercury
4y
Got rid os NBC SN
Only properties they have
ND athetlics
NBC Sunday nite (which includes infrequent super bowl)
Olympics
Thats it. they dont really want to get into full fledge bidding wars.
Only properties they have
ND athetlics
NBC Sunday nite (which includes infrequent super bowl)
Olympics
Thats it. they dont really want to get into full fledge bidding wars.
(In response to this post by BAMRising)
T
TerryD
4y
The ACC would be better served to try to expand to 15 football members with WVU or even 16 with Cincinnati to re-open the ESPN contract than hope for ND to join any time soon.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
Espn reaally wants ND. They will at least make an attempt. After that they will have everything they want.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
4y
NBC guarantees ND a 2:30 or 3:30 Saturday time slot, every weekend, over the air, coast to coast.
ESPN cannot or likely will not do the same.
Plus, ND has already started Fighting Irish TV and doesn't need a Longhorn Network.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2021/04/13/stream...
ND is also getting a full share of all ACC Network profits right now.
https://www.dailypress.com/sports/columns/david-teel/dp-t...
[Post edited by TerryD at 02/10/2022 1:09PM]
ESPN cannot or likely will not do the same.
Plus, ND has already started Fighting Irish TV and doesn't need a Longhorn Network.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2021/04/13/stream...
ND is also getting a full share of all ACC Network profits right now.
https://www.dailypress.com/sports/columns/david-teel/dp-t...
[Post edited by TerryD at 02/10/2022 1:09PM]
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
But 1 game was on peacock this year and all the nbcsn notre dame coverage will be gone. No word on a new nbc contract yet. Im sure abc/espn could offer much more than nbc would ever be willing or able to. Im not saying they would accept, just saying espn is going to offer alot this time.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
4y
NBC and ND have a thirty year relationship.
Since 1991, ND has NEVER taken its home TV rights to the market, it has always renewed with NBC about 2 years before expiration (2025).
So, look for ND to renew the NBC deal next year.
NBCSN is irrelevant. ND hockey and other coverage will migrate to Peacock and/or USA Network.
ND likes the OTA nature of NBC, since some ND "Oldheimers" don't have cable or stream much.
Can ESPN guarantee that every ND home game will be televised in a dedicated 2:30-6:00 time slot?
NBC does, I doubt ESPN can or will. It has too much inventory to do so, I think.
Money talks, but the ESPN offer would have to be in a different universe to get ND to consider ending its relationship with NBC.
You guys hate the ACC ESPN deal but seem confident that ND will sign with them?
I bet $100 right now that ND re-ups with NBC and does not sign with ESPN when the NBC deal deadline approaches.
[Post edited by TerryD at 02/10/2022 3:42PM]
Since 1991, ND has NEVER taken its home TV rights to the market, it has always renewed with NBC about 2 years before expiration (2025).
So, look for ND to renew the NBC deal next year.
NBCSN is irrelevant. ND hockey and other coverage will migrate to Peacock and/or USA Network.
ND likes the OTA nature of NBC, since some ND "Oldheimers" don't have cable or stream much.
Can ESPN guarantee that every ND home game will be televised in a dedicated 2:30-6:00 time slot?
NBC does, I doubt ESPN can or will. It has too much inventory to do so, I think.
Money talks, but the ESPN offer would have to be in a different universe to get ND to consider ending its relationship with NBC.
You guys hate the ACC ESPN deal but seem confident that ND will sign with them?
I bet $100 right now that ND re-ups with NBC and does not sign with ESPN when the NBC deal deadline approaches.
[Post edited by TerryD at 02/10/2022 3:42PM]
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
M
Mercury
4y
Do think there is one more conference move (WV to ACC and Kansas to the Big 10) So conveniently the Big 10 and ACC both have 15 for football (and PODS) for scheduling).
This also allows Big 12 to add USF ? and Memphis
This also allows Big 12 to add USF ? and Memphis
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
*Saying there have been no discussions between the two and WVU is happy in the Big 12. Take it for what it's worth. I'm sure this Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC has to be worked out first before any discussions of Kansas to Big Ten or WVU to ACC can be started. Both make some sense.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
T
Truthahn
4y
They are 10 Million dollars per team per year behind us. The ACC has a 10+ year GOR holding it together. Any conference raiding in the short term will probably be more Big 12 teams leaving.
I'm sure they want to wait out the Texas and OK exit to collect the big fees, but after that is settled, I would not be surprised to see a couple of them get picked off by the bigger conferences.
Personally, I love WVU and would be happy to see them in the ACC, but I believe Baylor and OK State would be better choices for us at this point. Take those two and the new Big 12 is finally toast as a major conference and most of the Big 12 TV money would come to us.
I'm sure they want to wait out the Texas and OK exit to collect the big fees, but after that is settled, I would not be surprised to see a couple of them get picked off by the bigger conferences.
Personally, I love WVU and would be happy to see them in the ACC, but I believe Baylor and OK State would be better choices for us at this point. Take those two and the new Big 12 is finally toast as a major conference and most of the Big 12 TV money would come to us.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
M
Mercury
4y
This is not a transparent transaction. Any meetings discussion, will be extremely closed hold or will not be discussed, for legal contract implications.
Common Sense. Big 12 need to be stabilized and WVU (and Kansas) frankly dont want to do ANYTHING to upset the transformation,.. they are ok now). Further, the Existing Power 5 want to first reorganize the NCAA and governance before anything is done. Like the ACC, nothing on CFB championship expansion, should be acted up until he rules for the NCAA and power 5 schools need to be made. Meetings are being held NOW. ACC commissioner is one of the prime players on the working committees. This will clear the air on Portal, NIL, even conference organization and management, scholarship and recruiting rules.
However,
big 12 knows WVU is the outlier to the membership and a regional partner is better. Kansas has more ties institutionally with the big 10....If anything breaks lose, that means all is signed sealed and delivered already and negotiations already has been made.
Common Sense. Big 12 need to be stabilized and WVU (and Kansas) frankly dont want to do ANYTHING to upset the transformation,.. they are ok now). Further, the Existing Power 5 want to first reorganize the NCAA and governance before anything is done. Like the ACC, nothing on CFB championship expansion, should be acted up until he rules for the NCAA and power 5 schools need to be made. Meetings are being held NOW. ACC commissioner is one of the prime players on the working committees. This will clear the air on Portal, NIL, even conference organization and management, scholarship and recruiting rules.
However,
big 12 knows WVU is the outlier to the membership and a regional partner is better. Kansas has more ties institutionally with the big 10....If anything breaks lose, that means all is signed sealed and delivered already and negotiations already has been made.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
Is be patient. These things take time. Let the issues with OU/UT and SEC resolve first. For me personally if the ACC works out in the future that's great, but if not Big 12 is ok as long as it's considered a power conference. I'd be ok playing Pitt and VT out of conference yearly but with "the Alliance" scheduling it doesn't sound like that will happen.
[Post edited by Millpoint at 02/11/2022 10:00PM]
[Post edited by Millpoint at 02/11/2022 10:00PM]
(In response to this post by Mercury)
4y
I doubt there have been any formal discussions, and if WVU is happy, they should stay in the Big12. I selfishly want them in the ACC because I starting really getting into VT sports in the late 80's / early 90's. My high school coach was a WVU coach in the 70s. We had kids from my high school play at both schools. The love for each program was visible and heated! UVa was the elitist school that was great to beat, but WVU was THE game of the year. The two schools should be playing each year.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
Hopefully the ACC won't screw this up. Go 3 permanent rivals, rotate others
by playing them every other year (can do this by playing as few as 8 conference games, but could and should play more). Get rid of divisions. Forget pods. Let's go.
3 perm rivals:
LOU: Pitt, FSU, SYR
VT: UVa, MIA, GT
UVa: VT, UNC, Duke
GT: Clemson, VT, Wake
UNC: Duke, NCSt, UVa
NCSt: UNC, Clemson, Wake
MIA: FSU, BC, VT
FSU: MIA, Clemson, LOU
BC: SYR, MIA, Pitt
Pitt: BC, SYR, LOU
SYR: BC, Lou, Pitt
Duke: UNC, Wake, UVa
Wake: Duke, NCSt, GT
Clemson: NCSt, GT, FSU
3 perm rivals:
LOU: Pitt, FSU, SYR
VT: UVa, MIA, GT
UVa: VT, UNC, Duke
GT: Clemson, VT, Wake
UNC: Duke, NCSt, UVa
NCSt: UNC, Clemson, Wake
MIA: FSU, BC, VT
FSU: MIA, Clemson, LOU
BC: SYR, MIA, Pitt
Pitt: BC, SYR, LOU
SYR: BC, Lou, Pitt
Duke: UNC, Wake, UVa
Wake: Duke, NCSt, GT
Clemson: NCSt, GT, FSU
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Mercury
4y
After the expansion
The conference is going to ask each school for the top 5 for a pod. These will get their no 1 pick
This list will be provided by the ad for each school. That's their job.
Then they will adjust. The big picture
All teams will probably get their 1 and 2 . 3 maybe and 4 50-50.
And no worry the pods allow teams to see the other conference members more often.
Im looking forward if big ten and pac 12 go to pods for inter conference scheduling
The conference is going to ask each school for the top 5 for a pod. These will get their no 1 pick
This list will be provided by the ad for each school. That's their job.
Then they will adjust. The big picture
All teams will probably get their 1 and 2 . 3 maybe and 4 50-50.
And no worry the pods allow teams to see the other conference members more often.
Im looking forward if big ten and pac 12 go to pods for inter conference scheduling
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
Vippie1
4y
with three permanent "rivals". I'll say it again ZERO rivals, 9 games. You will play every school almost 3 out of every 4 years. And overtime the schedules are fair-one year it is hard, the next it is easy. And if you want to play your rival in the 4th year do it OOC.
I mean look at the so called rivalries you're plan would be protecting.
I like a lot of your posts but this one makes no sense to me.
I mean look at the so called rivalries you're plan would be protecting.
I like a lot of your posts but this one makes no sense to me.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
Rivalries matter. And they matter more than equitable schedules.
Especially if there is a title game to sort it out.
Plus, rotating schedule doesn't insure equity either. Unless you are playing a round robin schedule, then it is all inequitable in a given year anyway. So you might as well preserve what is most important.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/10/2022 1:39PM]
Plus, rotating schedule doesn't insure equity either. Unless you are playing a round robin schedule, then it is all inequitable in a given year anyway. So you might as well preserve what is most important.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/10/2022 1:39PM]
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
4y
of a conference beyond a certain number (i.e. 8-12) may be a "bad" idea. Yes, a conference may get a slightly larger pie to divide up into more slices. However, that pie, like everything else, comes with its own cost too. Sometimes the additional money isn't worth all that has to be sacrificed to get it.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
You may not care about the "Textile Bowl," but I can guarantee you that both Clemson and NC State care about it. Rivalries is what makes football great whether you are talking HS, college, or even the pros. If a conference doesn't capitalize on the existing rivalries and try to maximize the protection of them, then it is only shooting itself in the foot. If the lack of rivalries rub enough schools the wrong way, then eventually they will decide to leave the conference and either join an existing one or create a brand new one (i.e. the MWC).
WRT playing OOC games, it may not be practical given the ACC Notre Dame requirement, ACC-SEC rivalry games, and the ACC's supposed increasing of Alliance games. Something will have to give there and most likely it will be 2 conference foes playing an OOC game. Historically that practice has been a once in a blue moon any ways, so why should anyone expect it to change now?
Plus, most schools have multiple conference rivals. If there is a year where they don't happen to play 2 or 3 of those rivals, then is it fair to expect that school to give up playing Notre Dame and/or an Alliance game so it could play its conference rivals in an OOC game? If there is a year where VT isn't scheduled to play UVA and Miami, then I can guarantee you there will be a lot of pissed off Hokie fans demanding answers and maybe even calling for the AD's head for allowing it to happen in the first place.
WRT playing OOC games, it may not be practical given the ACC Notre Dame requirement, ACC-SEC rivalry games, and the ACC's supposed increasing of Alliance games. Something will have to give there and most likely it will be 2 conference foes playing an OOC game. Historically that practice has been a once in a blue moon any ways, so why should anyone expect it to change now?
Plus, most schools have multiple conference rivals. If there is a year where they don't happen to play 2 or 3 of those rivals, then is it fair to expect that school to give up playing Notre Dame and/or an Alliance game so it could play its conference rivals in an OOC game? If there is a year where VT isn't scheduled to play UVA and Miami, then I can guarantee you there will be a lot of pissed off Hokie fans demanding answers and maybe even calling for the AD's head for allowing it to happen in the first place.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
Yes. ANNUAL rivalries are where it's at.
I think the only school that absolutely needs three games for rivals is UNC (Duke, UVa, NCState).
But many others need two. And if you just make it three across the board, it makes it simpler to schedule.
Sign me up for UVa, Miami and GT.
And the more additional ACC games there are in the schedule, the more the equitable schedule concern is satisfied. And if you look at my list above, most have balance to them anyway. Make Duke and Wake is a bit easier than others, but who cares. I'd prefer to play those teams less anyway.
But many others need two. And if you just make it three across the board, it makes it simpler to schedule.
Sign me up for UVa, Miami and GT.
And the more additional ACC games there are in the schedule, the more the equitable schedule concern is satisfied. And if you look at my list above, most have balance to them anyway. Make Duke and Wake is a bit easier than others, but who cares. I'd prefer to play those teams less anyway.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
Vippie1
4y
Then you should be advocating more divisions, 4 team pods and 16 schools.
I personally think the detriment far outweighs the benefits. In VT case no one would lose an ounce of sleep if we only played GT and Miami 3 out of every 4 years.
We will have to agree to disagree. But I will buy you dinner if the ACc ever adopts what you are proposing.
I personally think the detriment far outweighs the benefits. In VT case no one would lose an ounce of sleep if we only played GT and Miami 3 out of every 4 years.
We will have to agree to disagree. But I will buy you dinner if the ACc ever adopts what you are proposing.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
No. How is adding two teams going to allow us to play more often?
And pods are a waste if there are teams in your pods that you don't care to play every year.
Pods also create this problem. UVa has to be in a pod with UNC. UNC has to be in a pod with Duke and NCState. So let's say those four teams are in a pod. Where does that leave the VT-UVa game? Do you make an exemption for those two teams to play? Or do you end the annual rivalry? Either way, it's bad.
Also, if you are talking about adding more teams, that is a whole other ballgame. We are talking about two more mouths to feed ($$$). And I, for one, would rather the conference get smaller rather than larger. But I digress.
Pods also create this problem. UVa has to be in a pod with UNC. UNC has to be in a pod with Duke and NCState. So let's say those four teams are in a pod. Where does that leave the VT-UVa game? Do you make an exemption for those two teams to play? Or do you end the annual rivalry? Either way, it's bad.
Also, if you are talking about adding more teams, that is a whole other ballgame. We are talking about two more mouths to feed ($$$). And I, for one, would rather the conference get smaller rather than larger. But I digress.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
4y
of 5, it still wouldn't guarantee that the ACC protects the maximum number of rivalries among all the available options. In terms of protecting the maximum number of rivalries, it is possible that the 2 permanent divisions and 1 protected cross-division game is the best option to achieving that goal which would be ironic given all the discussions that have taken place on the topic.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Certainly adding teams would complicate matters.
Not sure if 3 permanent rivals is mathematically viable at that point. Maybe. Maybe not. I'd have to sit down and figure it out. But that being said, no matter what, I think rivalries should be respected and preserved.
As much as I support WVU in the ACC, I wouldn't add them unless ND is coming (which as far as I'm concerned is against all odds and isn't even worth wasting time thinking about).
I wish when UMd left that we would have cut a deal with the BigXII to get WVU from them. Louisville would have been better for them IMO, and WVU would have been better for us. And it would obviously have been better for WVU.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/10/2022 4:32PM]
As much as I support WVU in the ACC, I wouldn't add them unless ND is coming (which as far as I'm concerned is against all odds and isn't even worth wasting time thinking about).
I wish when UMd left that we would have cut a deal with the BigXII to get WVU from them. Louisville would have been better for them IMO, and WVU would have been better for us. And it would obviously have been better for WVU.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/10/2022 4:32PM]
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
If the ACC did expand to 15 and opt to go with 3 pods of 5, then the ACC could opt to go with 6 conference games (4 pod + 1 from the other 2 pods that rotate). The ACC might be able to stick with 8 conference games (4 pod + 2 from the other 2 pods that rotate). I would have to double check the math on that scenario though. It might not work when you get to figuring out the rest of the schedule for the 5th team in a pod.
Regardless, quads/pods is probably the least effective way to maximize the protection of the most rivalries.
Regardless, quads/pods is probably the least effective way to maximize the protection of the most rivalries.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3 Permanent rivals seems to only work with an even amount of teams.
So it works and looks great with the 14 we have now.
But if you add a #15 (WVU?), it doesn't work mathematically if I am doing it correctly 🤔
Dream scenario: Notre Dame joins and we go to 16 with WVU, then it would work mathematically. In terms of the particular three games, I assume ND would get to pick their 3 teams first as a deal to join, then you can work down from there.
I just drew it up on white board here at work after hours 😆
But if you add a #15 (WVU?), it doesn't work mathematically if I am doing it correctly 🤔
Dream scenario: Notre Dame joins and we go to 16 with WVU, then it would work mathematically. In terms of the particular three games, I assume ND would get to pick their 3 teams first as a deal to join, then you can work down from there.
I just drew it up on white board here at work after hours 😆
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
to verify that it was in violation of the bylaws because a division with 6 and a division with 7 couldn't play a round robin division schedule and still play the same total number of conference games. I tried it with 6, 7, 8, 9, and even 10. It is a pain in the butt and it can be time consuming, but sometimes that is the only way you can confirm/refute something. My experience with the MAC was the primary reason I didn't think it could work with 15 football teams or at least led me to conclude you would run into problems with the 5th team in the pod. The math doesn't work at that point.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
O
obguthr
4y
In a 12 game season, with 8-9 conference games:
14 teams: 3 rivals every year + 5 non-rivals every other year + 4 OOC
15 teams: 2 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every other year + 4 OOC
16 teams: 3 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every other year + 3 OOC
17 teams: 2 rivals every year + 7 non-rivals every other year + 3 OOC
18 teams: 3 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every 2-3 years + 3 OOC
19 teams: 2 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every 2-3 years + 4 OOC
20 teams: 3 rivals every year + 4 non-rivals every 4 years + 5 OOC
I prefer 14 as the 4 OOC games would allow for playing a team from each of the P5 conferences and accomodate teams with more than 2 rivals.
Pods are essentially just protected rivals except that everyone in each pod has the same rivals. That's too restrictive as MB has already explained. Tailor the designated rivalries to each team instead of lumping them in contrived pods.
Now if we could get all the P5 conferences back to 14 teams, the scheduling falls in place very nicely. The easiest way to do that would be for Texas and Oklahoma to say in the expanded B12 and add Memphis (Or Boise or USF, etc.), and P12 to add BYU and Our Lady of Independents-South Bend.
14 teams: 3 rivals every year + 5 non-rivals every other year + 4 OOC
15 teams: 2 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every other year + 4 OOC
16 teams: 3 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every other year + 3 OOC
17 teams: 2 rivals every year + 7 non-rivals every other year + 3 OOC
18 teams: 3 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every 2-3 years + 3 OOC
19 teams: 2 rivals every year + 6 non-rivals every 2-3 years + 4 OOC
20 teams: 3 rivals every year + 4 non-rivals every 4 years + 5 OOC
I prefer 14 as the 4 OOC games would allow for playing a team from each of the P5 conferences and accomodate teams with more than 2 rivals.
Pods are essentially just protected rivals except that everyone in each pod has the same rivals. That's too restrictive as MB has already explained. Tailor the designated rivalries to each team instead of lumping them in contrived pods.
Now if we could get all the P5 conferences back to 14 teams, the scheduling falls in place very nicely. The easiest way to do that would be for Texas and Oklahoma to say in the expanded B12 and add Memphis (Or Boise or USF, etc.), and P12 to add BYU and Our Lady of Independents-South Bend.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
to only 2 make not work because there should be enough members who will want to protect 3 games to kill the vote. Here is a list of those potential schools. Keep in mind the info is based on various sources that have indicated the school's opinion on what is or isn't a rivalry. If the ACC is going to go down this road, then it should treat each school's opinion with the same level of respect. Otherwise, you risk offending members and creating crack in a foundation that may already be fragile.
Clemson: FSU, GT, and NC State (Textile Bowl)
UNC: Duke, NC State, and UVA
Duke: UNC, Wake, and UVA
UVA: Duke, UNC, and VT
VT: UVA, Miami, and WVU Note: VT-L'ville could be a potential rivalry because most older VT fans remember how L'ville treated VT when both were a member of the Metro Conference.
WVU: Pitt, VT, and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy) Note: WVU-UVA could a rivalry given that the UVA Pep Band made fun of WVU during the halftime show of the 2002 Continental Tire Bowl.
NC State: UNC, Wake, and Clemson
Wake: Duke, NC State, and UNC
Some else to consider is that a school may see this as an opportunity to rekindle a rivalry. For example, Miami may want to renew its rivalry with BC and Syracuse as well as keep its rivalry with FSU and maybe even VT. Even FSU and UVA have a secondary rivalry where the winner of the game receives the Jefferson-Eppes Trophy. BC and Clemson play for a trophy (O'Rourke–McFadden Trophy) and I believe both schools consider it to be a secondary rivalry. I guess it is possible that Clemson could say it would rather continue its "rivalry" with BC instead of its "rivalry" with FSU which really didn't develop until both schools had a Bowden for its HC. It is possible that GT may want to continue its rivalries with Clemson and VT which could become problematic for VT if it already has its 3 protected games. At some point something will have to give and every school may not end up with its Top 3 choices or even Top 2 choices. Then again, it has already been established that it isn't possible for 15 schools to have 3 protected games because the math doesn't work out in the end.
Clemson: FSU, GT, and NC State (Textile Bowl)
UNC: Duke, NC State, and UVA
Duke: UNC, Wake, and UVA
UVA: Duke, UNC, and VT
VT: UVA, Miami, and WVU Note: VT-L'ville could be a potential rivalry because most older VT fans remember how L'ville treated VT when both were a member of the Metro Conference.
WVU: Pitt, VT, and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy) Note: WVU-UVA could a rivalry given that the UVA Pep Band made fun of WVU during the halftime show of the 2002 Continental Tire Bowl.
NC State: UNC, Wake, and Clemson
Wake: Duke, NC State, and UNC
Some else to consider is that a school may see this as an opportunity to rekindle a rivalry. For example, Miami may want to renew its rivalry with BC and Syracuse as well as keep its rivalry with FSU and maybe even VT. Even FSU and UVA have a secondary rivalry where the winner of the game receives the Jefferson-Eppes Trophy. BC and Clemson play for a trophy (O'Rourke–McFadden Trophy) and I believe both schools consider it to be a secondary rivalry. I guess it is possible that Clemson could say it would rather continue its "rivalry" with BC instead of its "rivalry" with FSU which really didn't develop until both schools had a Bowden for its HC. It is possible that GT may want to continue its rivalries with Clemson and VT which could become problematic for VT if it already has its 3 protected games. At some point something will have to give and every school may not end up with its Top 3 choices or even Top 2 choices. Then again, it has already been established that it isn't possible for 15 schools to have 3 protected games because the math doesn't work out in the end.
Link:
UVA Pep Band Did What?
(In response to this post by obguthr)
I'd be fine with just giving each individual school what it needs
UNC needs three protected games (UVa, Duke, NCSt). Give them three.
Maybe UVa only wants two (UNC and VT), then give them two.
Maybe FSU only wants one (Mia), then given them one.
Maybe Louisville doesn't want any and want to just play everyone more often.
I think this approach could be worked out as well.
I agree with what you said about treating each school's opinion equally. I just think there are some schools that no one else is going to want to play as an every-year meeting. Louisville comes to mind, and maybe Wake.
BTW, I know we all have different opinions on this. But I like playing GT every year and would love to keep doing it. I think it is good to have a Florida team to play every year like Miami. It will be nice to get the WVU series going again. But I would put them at my #4 or #5 preference in the league. (UVa, Miami, GT, then WVU along with UNC, Clemson, FSU, and NC State). Louisville and the three northern schools would be next. With Wake and Duke being last.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/11/2022 3:15PM]
Maybe UVa only wants two (UNC and VT), then give them two.
Maybe FSU only wants one (Mia), then given them one.
Maybe Louisville doesn't want any and want to just play everyone more often.
I think this approach could be worked out as well.
I agree with what you said about treating each school's opinion equally. I just think there are some schools that no one else is going to want to play as an every-year meeting. Louisville comes to mind, and maybe Wake.
BTW, I know we all have different opinions on this. But I like playing GT every year and would love to keep doing it. I think it is good to have a Florida team to play every year like Miami. It will be nice to get the WVU series going again. But I would put them at my #4 or #5 preference in the league. (UVa, Miami, GT, then WVU along with UNC, Clemson, FSU, and NC State). Louisville and the three northern schools would be next. With Wake and Duke being last.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/11/2022 3:15PM]
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
will increase the likelihood that there will be more quirks with the future rotation schedule. For example, VT may not see an increase in the number of times it plays Clemson or FSU because VT's turn in the rotation gets "bumped" for 1 of their protected games. Instead, of playing Clemson or FSU more, VT could end up playing BC or Wake more. If you look at the future rotation schedule for both the Big Ten and Pac-12, then you will see what mean.
Big Ten: Indiana-Purdue is the only protected cross-division game. Compare how many times teams play Indiana or Purdue compared to the other teams in the division.
Pac-12: Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC have 2 protected cross-division games so they can play the other 2 CA in the other division every year. Compare how frequently the other 8 members play each other compared to the 2 CA schools in the other division.
For the record, I'm not opposed to the idea. However, if the ACC opts to go this route, then some schools and/or their fans may not like it because it doesn't increase the frequency they play every team in the other division.
Big Ten: Indiana-Purdue is the only protected cross-division game. Compare how many times teams play Indiana or Purdue compared to the other teams in the division.
Pac-12: Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC have 2 protected cross-division games so they can play the other 2 CA in the other division every year. Compare how frequently the other 8 members play each other compared to the 2 CA schools in the other division.
For the record, I'm not opposed to the idea. However, if the ACC opts to go this route, then some schools and/or their fans may not like it because it doesn't increase the frequency they play every team in the other division.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
As long as no team has more than 3 and we play 5 or more additional ACC
games, I think it would work out where everyone would see one another every other year.
IMO, only UNC needs 3, but if others have 3, that is fine. For the record, I'd prefer that everyone has 3 like I mentioned above.
IMO, only UNC needs 3, but if others have 3, that is fine. For the record, I'd prefer that everyone has 3 like I mentioned above.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
when NC State and VT probably have just as valid of a claim.
NC State = UNC, Wake and Clemson
VT = UVA, Miami, and GT
If WVU ever joins the ACC, then I could see VT claim it needs to protect 4.
NC State = UNC, Wake and Clemson
VT = UVA, Miami, and GT
If WVU ever joins the ACC, then I could see VT claim it needs to protect 4.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I'd like to play WVU every year. But we aren't doing it now, so that is
your answer. I think we could live without playing Miami and NC State could live without playing Wake. Preferable? absolutely. But necessary? No.
We have been playing BC every year for about the same length at we've been playing Miami (save the 2004 season). But everyone on here acts like it's a drag to play them every year.
Like I said, I'd like to keep these games, including GT. And for everyone to have three permanent games.
We have been playing BC every year for about the same length at we've been playing Miami (save the 2004 season). But everyone on here acts like it's a drag to play them every year.
Like I said, I'd like to keep these games, including GT. And for everyone to have three permanent games.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
have played each other continuously since 1910 (back when NC State was known as NC A&M). It might be tough for both schools to give it up since the rivalry evolved into a divisional rivalry. Unfortunately, VT doesn't really have that kind of history with any 1 school when you factor in conference affiliation. 3 protected games for everyone is probably the best compromise assuming the math works with 14 football members. If the football membership increased to 15 or 16, then number probably should be 3 or 4.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
As a WVU fan I would be fine if we played Pitt and VT every year. Most WVU fans could care less about Syracuse. If a third team had to be put into the equation I would figure we would get stuck with Loserville since no one else would want them.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
At least it is possible that any 3 ACC schools could end up with L'ville. For example, FSU doesn't really have a clear #3 assuming it even cares about its "rivalry" with Clemson any more. Also, it is possible that Wake could need a #3 team depending on how things shake out with UNC. At least I wouldn't assume that Wake would end up with the other 3 NC schools as its protected games. GT would be in the same boat as FSU after Clemson and VT were selected as its first 2 protected games.
If L'ville ended up with Pitt, Wake, and GT, then that would free WVU to be paired with Syracuse or UVA. Even if most fans don't care about the Syracuse-WVU rivalry, it would be interesting to know how the school feels about it. It would even be interesting to know who the school would write down as its Top 3 choices.
If L'ville ended up with Pitt, Wake, and GT, then that would free WVU to be paired with Syracuse or UVA. Even if most fans don't care about the Syracuse-WVU rivalry, it would be interesting to know how the school feels about it. It would even be interesting to know who the school would write down as its Top 3 choices.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
I do think you could see Duke, UVA, and Wake make a claim that they need 3 too.
Duke: UNC, Wake, UVA
UVA: UNC, VT, Duke
Wake: 3 other NC schools
If the 4 NC schools ban together, then you might even see them claim they need 4 so they could play each other plus Duke (UVA), UNC (UVA), and NC State (Clemson) can still play a non-NC rival. Now I don't think there is a Duke-UVA rivlary, but I have seen reports where both schools claim to have one. If the schools say its a rivalry, then who am I to say differently.
Personally, I think having 3 protected games would be a fair compromise. Then again, we are talking about the ACC, so I am not confident that the ACC won't find a way to screw this plan up too.
Duke: UNC, Wake, UVA
UVA: UNC, VT, Duke
Wake: 3 other NC schools
If the 4 NC schools ban together, then you might even see them claim they need 4 so they could play each other plus Duke (UVA), UNC (UVA), and NC State (Clemson) can still play a non-NC rival. Now I don't think there is a Duke-UVA rivlary, but I have seen reports where both schools claim to have one. If the schools say its a rivalry, then who am I to say differently.
Personally, I think having 3 protected games would be a fair compromise. Then again, we are talking about the ACC, so I am not confident that the ACC won't find a way to screw this plan up too.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
M
Mercury
4y
only vocal minority group that worries about the number of cookies allowed in the game, and want ot make it an inquisition.
It will be worked out in a collaborative environment. My take
UVA VT WVU Pitt Louisville
Cuse BC FSU Miami GT
UNC State Wake Duke Clemson
It will be worked out in a collaborative environment. My take
UVA VT WVU Pitt Louisville
Cuse BC FSU Miami GT
UNC State Wake Duke Clemson
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
UVa needs to keep playing UNC.
And I'm not a big fan of pods. No need for them if we are bagging divisions.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
4y
[Post edited by Millpoint at 02/09/2022 7:30PM]
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
is by VT leaving the ACC for another conference.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
I would give up playing UVA every year if we can stop playing BC yearly.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
because the majority of the schools are currently paired with an important rival. Only BC, L'ville, UVA, and VT are not paired with an important rival.
VT made its bed when JW valued playing 2 conference games against UVA in basketball more than VT being paired up with UVA in football. There was a scenario where VT and UMD could have swapped places. If that happened then UMD would have been paired with BC and VT would have been paired with UVA. However, it probably would have cost VT its rivalry game against Miami unless the ACC was willing to sacrifice the Clemson-FSU "rivalry" by swapping FSU and Miami. Under that scenario the divisions would have looked like this.
Atlantic/Coastal
BC-UMD
VT-UVA
Wake-Duke
NC State-UNC
Clemson-GT
FSU-Miami
or
Atlantic/Coastal
BC-UMD
VT-UVA
Wake-Duke
NC State-UNC
Clemson-GT
Miami-FSU
Now this scenario would have also required the ACC to not have divisions in basketball. I can't say how much JW or other ADs objected the idea of not having divisions in basketball (assuming they objected to the issue at all). I will say the ACC probably got the idea from the SEC because that is what the SEC did when it first expanded to 12 members. Eventually the SEC eliminated the divisions in basketball (I think 10 or so seasons after it expanded to 12 members) which is exactly what the ACC eventually did after it expanded to 14 or 15 members.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 02/10/2022 01:55AM]
VT made its bed when JW valued playing 2 conference games against UVA in basketball more than VT being paired up with UVA in football. There was a scenario where VT and UMD could have swapped places. If that happened then UMD would have been paired with BC and VT would have been paired with UVA. However, it probably would have cost VT its rivalry game against Miami unless the ACC was willing to sacrifice the Clemson-FSU "rivalry" by swapping FSU and Miami. Under that scenario the divisions would have looked like this.
Atlantic/Coastal
BC-UMD
VT-UVA
Wake-Duke
NC State-UNC
Clemson-GT
FSU-Miami
or
Atlantic/Coastal
BC-UMD
VT-UVA
Wake-Duke
NC State-UNC
Clemson-GT
Miami-FSU
Now this scenario would have also required the ACC to not have divisions in basketball. I can't say how much JW or other ADs objected the idea of not having divisions in basketball (assuming they objected to the issue at all). I will say the ACC probably got the idea from the SEC because that is what the SEC did when it first expanded to 12 members. Eventually the SEC eliminated the divisions in basketball (I think 10 or so seasons after it expanded to 12 members) which is exactly what the ACC eventually did after it expanded to 14 or 15 members.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 02/10/2022 01:55AM]
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
BC should play Syracuse, Miami, and Pitt each year. Not VT.
Miami wanted them to come along in the ACC expansion deal in 2003. So they can have them as a permanent rival. And BC has stronger ties to Pitt and Syracuse from the old Eastern Independent days than VT.
BC: Syracuse, Miami, Pitt
VT: UVa, Miami, GT
BC: Syracuse, Miami, Pitt
VT: UVa, Miami, GT
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
and Wake as its 3 protected games. ;-)
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
Also makes sense for the Big Ten, Pac12 and new Big 12. The ability to play all conference mates more regularly is a no brainer. Plus you will always have your two best teams in the championship game.
(In response to this post by Stech)
4y
the schedules are still not balanced. Any given year, a team could end up in the championship via "soft" schedule while a perceived better team is at home because they drew the short schedule straw
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
Gotta be better than Coastal and Atlantic champions.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
4y
partially based on OOC performance
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
this route. If the ACC ends up being the only power conference to go this route, then it could be interesting to see if that helps or hurt the ACC perceptually speaking.
Given that the Pac-12 has 2 protected games for the 4 CA schools so they can play each other every year, I'm not sure the Pac-12 really gains that much by scrapping the divisions because UDub, Wazzou, Oregon, and Oregon State are already playing 2 CA schools and Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State more frequently. The only thing the Pac-12 gains is playing the 2 CA in the other division more frequently which may or may not be that much of a gain to begin with.
Given that the Pac-12 has 2 protected games for the 4 CA schools so they can play each other every year, I'm not sure the Pac-12 really gains that much by scrapping the divisions because UDub, Wazzou, Oregon, and Oregon State are already playing 2 CA schools and Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State more frequently. The only thing the Pac-12 gains is playing the 2 CA in the other division more frequently which may or may not be that much of a gain to begin with.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
though. Some conferences may opt to stick with the "traditional model" for various reasons. For example, the conferences that currently use geographic based divisions (i.e. Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, etc.) and 1 division happens to be more dominant, then those conferences could conclude that switching to the no division format could increase the likelihood that the 2 participating teams will end up coming from the same former division majority of the time.
Example purposes only
Big Ten: Michigan vs. Penn State (East Division)
Pac-12: USC vs. Arizona State (South Division)
SEC: LSU vs. Alabama (West Division)
Heck even the ACC could find that majority of the time the conference championship game involves 2 teams from either the former Atlantic Division or Coastal Division. If majority of the games end up involving teams from only 1 former division, then how will the schools and their fans of teams associated with the other former division react to this new reality? I could see a decent percentage conclude that the current way is "better" because at least both divisions are being represented in the conference championship game.
Example purposes only
Big Ten: Michigan vs. Penn State (East Division)
Pac-12: USC vs. Arizona State (South Division)
SEC: LSU vs. Alabama (West Division)
Heck even the ACC could find that majority of the time the conference championship game involves 2 teams from either the former Atlantic Division or Coastal Division. If majority of the games end up involving teams from only 1 former division, then how will the schools and their fans of teams associated with the other former division react to this new reality? I could see a decent percentage conclude that the current way is "better" because at least both divisions are being represented in the conference championship game.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
4y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
itself. I'm talking about a decision a conference makes compared to what the other power conferences or other DI-FBS conference make on which path to continue down.
If 8 of the 10 FBS conferences opt to keep with the traditional format, then perceptually will the decision of the 2 conferences to switch to this new format help or hurt them. It is possible that the concept could help both conferences and both conferences could still be hurt perceptually because the public has not embraced the idea. Likewise, the inverse is could be equally true.
If 8 of the 10 FBS conferences opt to keep with the traditional format, then perceptually will the decision of the 2 conferences to switch to this new format help or hurt them. It is possible that the concept could help both conferences and both conferences could still be hurt perceptually because the public has not embraced the idea. Likewise, the inverse is could be equally true.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
4y
Much discussion on how to divide it. East-West? North-South? Zipper? Keep Old Big 8 schools together? Keep Texas schools together? Big Ten is already talking about doing this with three protected rivals and alternating 5 and 5.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
conference to do it too. Given that the Big Ten has a lot of rivalries, I could see them go with the protected 3 + 5 X 5 model. Things could get a little tricky for some of the schools as far as which 3 teams end up being in their protected 3. At least there is a good chance some of the schools end up with 1 team that doesn't seem to belong to the protected 3 group. For example, UMD, Penn State, and Rutgers will make up 2 of the 3 teams for those 3 teams, but who ends up being the third team? Does Penn State get Ohio State or Michigan State because both seem like logical candidates. Whereas UMD and Rutgers really don't have any logical candidates.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
WVU, Cincinnati and UCF all play yearly.
Old Big 8 and Texas schools do the same.
Being a 12 team conference playing nine games a season you only miss two teams per year.
Old Big 8 and Texas schools do the same.
Being a 12 team conference playing nine games a season you only miss two teams per year.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
The Big 12 team on an island. I don’t think they would need any protected games since they have no history with any current teams or even someone in their time zone. There is speculation that Boise State and possibly Colorado State may be future expansion targets. Frankly I think BYU and Cincinnati should have been added to the Big 12 in 2016. Little known fact BYU was 5-0 against the PAC 12 last year. They will be an excellent addition to the Big 12 and are excited to be joining.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
the same model because it makes it easier when trying to establish a future schedule rotation for each school. Once the Big XII expands to 12, then it could be divided into 3 groups.
Group A: WVU, UCF, Cin, BYU
Group B: Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Okla State
Group C: Hou, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech
If those happen to be the 3 groups, then I could see fans of WVU, UCF, and Cin grow tired of always playing BYU. Heck BYU could even become their version of "Fredo" (reference to how a lot of Hokie fans view BC). They wouldn't necessary be wrong to think that because BYU probably should be in the same group as Texas Tech (based on geography). Although Group B could work too assuming Iowa St is moved to Group A. However, moving Iowa St to Group A doesn't make sense if you view it from a historic perspective. If you think about it, then you will see Group A is the "leftover group" or "oddball group" when factoring in the Big 8/SWC history.
It may even be enough for someone to conclude that Cincy, UCF, and WVU don't belong in the Big XII. Instead, they belong in a conference that is more eastern focus.
Metro 2.0 (for a lack of a better name)
Cincy
L'ville
Memphis
WVU
VT
Clemson
FSU
UCF
NC State or ECU?
Miami?
USF?
Pitt?
If those 12 teams formed a new conference, then the 2 divisions could look like this:
North: Pitt, Cincy, L'ville, WVU, VT, Memphis
South: NC State, Clemson, FSU, Miami, UCF, USF
I know 2 FL schools may be enough for the conference. However, by adding 4 FL schools, then the North teams could play 2 FL schools every year (1 home and 1 away). Plus, the 2 extra FL schools may be better than adding So. Miss, UAB, GA State, or GA Southern. Although if Pitt doesn't want to join this conference, then NC State (or ECU) could move to the North and UAB could join the South to fill that void. Regardless of which 12 end up in the Metro 2.0, I guess I would think the football would be much better than it is in the ACC and maybe even the Big XII when you start to factor in the importance of developing rivalries with the other members.
Group A: WVU, UCF, Cin, BYU
Group B: Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Okla State
Group C: Hou, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech
If those happen to be the 3 groups, then I could see fans of WVU, UCF, and Cin grow tired of always playing BYU. Heck BYU could even become their version of "Fredo" (reference to how a lot of Hokie fans view BC). They wouldn't necessary be wrong to think that because BYU probably should be in the same group as Texas Tech (based on geography). Although Group B could work too assuming Iowa St is moved to Group A. However, moving Iowa St to Group A doesn't make sense if you view it from a historic perspective. If you think about it, then you will see Group A is the "leftover group" or "oddball group" when factoring in the Big 8/SWC history.
It may even be enough for someone to conclude that Cincy, UCF, and WVU don't belong in the Big XII. Instead, they belong in a conference that is more eastern focus.
Metro 2.0 (for a lack of a better name)
Cincy
L'ville
Memphis
WVU
VT
Clemson
FSU
UCF
NC State or ECU?
Miami?
USF?
Pitt?
If those 12 teams formed a new conference, then the 2 divisions could look like this:
North: Pitt, Cincy, L'ville, WVU, VT, Memphis
South: NC State, Clemson, FSU, Miami, UCF, USF
I know 2 FL schools may be enough for the conference. However, by adding 4 FL schools, then the North teams could play 2 FL schools every year (1 home and 1 away). Plus, the 2 extra FL schools may be better than adding So. Miss, UAB, GA State, or GA Southern. Although if Pitt doesn't want to join this conference, then NC State (or ECU) could move to the North and UAB could join the South to fill that void. Regardless of which 12 end up in the Metro 2.0, I guess I would think the football would be much better than it is in the ACC and maybe even the Big XII when you start to factor in the importance of developing rivalries with the other members.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
I could see Ohio State pairing up with Maryland since they recruit the DC area so well. Same with Michigan and The State University of New Jersey. To hell with history.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
want "compelling match-ups?" Is Ohio State vs. UMD compelling? What about Michigan vs. Rutgers?
Speaking of history, most people may not know that Michigan and Minnesota have a "rivalry" and that they play for the Little Brown Jug. I could see Michigan end up with Minnesota as its 3rd protected game because of that reason. Likewise, Ohio State has a rivalry with Illinois and they play for the Illibuck Trophy. I could see Illinois end up being Ohio State's 3rd team for that same reason. If either happens, then that frees up "West" teams to be paired with "East" teams. That may or may not be a good thing depending on the person's point of view.
Speaking of history, most people may not know that Michigan and Minnesota have a "rivalry" and that they play for the Little Brown Jug. I could see Michigan end up with Minnesota as its 3rd protected game because of that reason. Likewise, Ohio State has a rivalry with Illinois and they play for the Illibuck Trophy. I could see Illinois end up being Ohio State's 3rd team for that same reason. If either happens, then that frees up "West" teams to be paired with "East" teams. That may or may not be a good thing depending on the person's point of view.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
4y
And expand later. TIC
(In response to this post by Millpoint)