»
Topic: Conference Divisions - Why Bother
Replies: 53   Last Post: Nov 15, 2013 3:11 PM by: Buffalo Creek Tiger
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 53  

Conference Divisions - Why Bother

[5]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:04 AM
 

With all the teams now in a conference, why bother having divisions?

Keep the permanent rival, so like FSU vs. Miami or Clemson vs. Ga Tech, but other than that switch up the games. Clemson plays UVA, BC, and NC State this year, they play Va Tech, Duke, and UNC the next. This way teams aren't waiting many many moons to play each other again.

Most importantly however, the current set up has robbed Clemson two years in a row to the ACCCG. The teams with the two best records should play. Why is that so complicated? Last year and this year would be Clemson vs. FSU.

Is it just me that thinks this current set-up is stupid?

2020 student level member

Clemson robbed Clemson.

[2]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:09 AM
 

I think the setup is fine. Win and you don't have to worry


Really? Best two teams should play...

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:18 AM
 

Anything else is dumb.

Furthermore, we aren't playing UVA again for like a decade after 2014. That is dumb. Every team should play every other team at least every other year.

The current set-up is stupid.

2020 student level member

Re: Really? Best two teams should play...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 1:26 PM
 

Your arguments are ironclad.

"Something something is dumb."
"Something something else is dumb."
"This is stupid."

I'm convinced.


LSU saI'd HI.... from the bama National Championship game***


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:15 AM
 




Quit crying just because we didn't win the Division.

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:19 AM
 

We wouldn't win the championship game either against FSU...


Who's crying?


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:22 AM
 

It's dumb that the two best teams don't play. It's a problem with the set-up.

Don't be a d**k.

2020 student level member

My wife...who really doens't care...says it's dumb


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:33 AM
 

I would say she is an unbiased observer and she said last night that it didn't make any sense to her that the best two teams don't play for the conference title. I tink thta lends some credibility to your arguement. Of course, if we were in the coastal we may be on the other side of that fence.

military_donation.jpg

Thank you!


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:55 AM
 

First person to reply that gets what I'm talking about.

I just think the current set up for the NCAA is bad. Teams in the same conference do not play each other enough, and the two best teams do not always play for the championship game.

2020 student level member

Re: Thank you!


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 1:28 PM
 

His wife who knows nothing about football sees what you are talking about. Doesn't mean you are right.


So, everyone is OK with the Division Set-Up?


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:27 AM
 

No flaws with it, everything is hunky dory?

Is it impossible to have a real conversation about the problem with the division set-up? Acknowledge both pros and cons?

I'm shocked if y'all think this is a good system. Teams not playing each other for years, and the two best teams in the conference not playing in the championship game. No one else sees a problem with this?

2020 student level member

Re: So, everyone is OK with the Division Set-Up?


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:48 AM
 

I think it might be in the ACC's (and any conference for that matter) best interest to create fluid divisions rather than rigid ones.

That would allow the divisions to be created every year (based on performance) and would insure that the 2 best teams would play in the championship game every year.

At the end of the day, Clemson had the opportunity to play FSU, (at home with a 5th year senior QB, when they had a true freshman QB) and lost. (so there are no excuses) Unfortunately, FSU is that good this year. Clemson is very good though too. They just had 1 bad night.


Re: So, everyone is OK with the Division Set-Up?


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:58 AM
 

If they could make that work, it could be cool. I think the planning and logistics behind it could be tough, though. So re-seed everyone for the next football season based on the previous season's results?

Div A: 2013's #1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13
Div B: 2013's #2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14

Admittedly, that could be cool if it was feasible. You wouldn't know who you were playing until the season was over. You'd need a lot of guidelines for the seeding.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Conference Divisions - Why Bother


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:38 AM
 

If you want to be the best team in your conference, you should beat the best team in your conference. For us, we get to prove it each season against FSU... we lost this year, but that doesn't mean we won't ever win again.

If the coastal winner beats FSU in the ACC championship, then kudos to them. I would rather play FSU in the regular season and gauge ourselves against them at that point, rather than blowing out UVA, Duke, WF, etc. and then getting embarrassed in Dec.

I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks; but I do fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. - Bruce Lee


Rules require divisions for championship game.***


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:41 AM
 




I get that...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:45 AM
 

I am just trying to get people's opinions about something different a shake up of the whole process. The process is stupid, yes or no? If no, why? If yes, why? What would you do about it?

2020 student level member

That is not what I'm saying at all...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 8:53 AM
 

I am saying, it is stupid the teams with the two best records do not play.

If anything, keep the divisions (which I also think is dumb), and for the Championship Game, base it off Conference record. The two with the best conference records play. That makes sense. That is simple.

In that case, should there be a tie-breaker, then the team with the better division record gets the nod.

Additionally, it's not about playing Wake, UVA, etc.. and blowing them out. It's dumb that after 2014, Clemson will not play UVA again for years. Essentially all the teams Clemson played in the ACC this year, switch it up and play completely different teams. So next year, instead of FSU, we play Miami. Instead of UVA, we play VA Tech. Instead of Wake, we play UNC. Instead of State, we play Duke, etc...Rotate every year so the teams can play one another more consistently.

2020 student level member

As it stands right now, the teams with the best two


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:11 AM
 

conference records DO play each other every year, regardless of divisions. If those teams are in the same division they play during the regular season (CU/FSU). If they're in opposing divisions then they'll play in the ACCCG.

The road to a conference championship is settled on the field in any case - as it should be. Nothing wrong with that formula.

I do agree that the Atlantic/Coastal split is a poor set-up as it lacks clarity and understanding for the casual football fan. The Big 10 is dumping their Legends/Leaders and going geographic, even though it's going to create unbalanced divisions. It will produce better football though, better games more often, that the casual fan can understand (East/West).

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That is not what I'm saying at all...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:37 AM
 

No offense, but your process is WAY more dumb than the current setup.

You know that everyone in each division PLAYS each other, right? So there is a good bit of fairness in the process. That would obviously not be the case with a 14-team division. One team could get UNC, Duke, and Wake on their schedule, while another could get Clemson, FSU, and Miami.

It just doesn't work. The B1G did that for a while when they were just 11 teams and it was a mess.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

So it's "dumb" for the 2 best teams to play...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:15 AM
 

In the Championship Game?

It's dumb to think that Clemson should play more of the ACC more frequently? Waiting a decade to play UVA again is smart? That is good for the conference? That is good for conference rivalries?

2020 student level member

You need to take off the orange-tinted glasses...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:20 AM
 

Nobody agrees with you. We had our chance to win the division and we didn't get it done. Going from a logical setup to some c0ckamamie system just so the Tigers can get into the ACCCG is silly. And dumb.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Good Lord, you are dense man...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:25 AM
 

I'm not talking about that at all.

The current set-up, across then entire NCAA is bad. That is the gist of what I'm saying.

The conferences and their divisions are bad. None of it makes sense. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. I was trying to have a conversation about that, but you don't seem to understand.

2020 student level member

Did you feel this way in 2009

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:22 AM
 

When Clemson got in the championship game over Virginia Tech?

You can't just change the rules every year based on what benefits you.


Yes.


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:55 AM
 

Best two teams should play in the Championship Game. Period. I don't know why this is so hard for some of you to understand.

2020 student level member

Re: Yes.


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:58 AM
 

Because it's dumb, that's why. It's not fair at all.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

I miss the old days

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:42 AM
 

Not being facetious - the old 9-team conference was ideal. You played everyone every year in football, twice in basketball, and it all worked out great.

With 15 or 16 teams, even if you do away with divisions and just go strictly by record, you end up with unbalanced schedules and arguments about who had to play who, etc.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

This is kinda what I'm talking about..


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:09 AM
 

With the days of 12 / 14 / 16 team conference, obviously not everyone can play every one each year.

But...If you create a permanent rival, you play that team every year (I like this current idea), then you have more rotation among the other teams. This way, we don't have to wait 5 years to play Miami or UVA, or VA Tech.

That to me is silly, and waters down the conference. If all teams played one another more frequently, I think that would create a better conference. The two teams left standing with the two best records play. I just do not see how the current set-up is better.

I realize the NCAA would first have to change it's rules to make this happen, but I wish the NCAA would blow up. I don't like it, and I don't like their rules.

2020 student level member

You're arguing against something that's worked pretty well


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:16 AM
 

for hundreds of years. It's why divisions were created in the first place-- so that it's fair. Why would any sport have divisions if it wasn't the fairest way?

Based on your logic, why wouldn't you have 32 NFL teams in one giant division and take the top 12 for the playoffs? Same for baseball?

I can understand if you wanted to shake up the alignment, but with 14 teams, it's the best way. 14 teams in one division is cumbersome and would be entirely unfair when your "best" teams play the weakest schedules.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: You're arguing against something that's worked pretty well


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:32 AM
 

I don't think the current set-up is working well.

The conferences are a mess and money rules the roost.

For starters, conferences should be regional. That is now blown-up and not the case anymore.

I haven't really proposed a specific plan about how to go about it...I was trying to have a convo about it. People like you just keep saying I'm butt hurt b/c Clemson isn't in the ACCCG. I am upset about that, but at the end of the day, I think the two best teams should play. We could have FSU vs. a team with 3 conference losses. Clemson has one conference loss. The undefeated team should play the team with one loss. If that other team was VA Tech, whatever. It happens to be Clemson right now.

I also don't like that teams in the same conference will not play one another for years. That waters down what a conference is supposed to be all about. I'm not sure the best way to do this, but I'm sure something could be done to increase the frequency rate.

2020 student level member

You wouldnt feel this way had Clemson beat FSU


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:45 AM
 

The first go around. You would rather face a lesser team from the Coastal. Dont lie to yourself.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I am all out of bubblegum"


^haha,


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:04 AM
 

you're probably right! :)

2020 student level member

We didn't get robbed, we got stomped.***

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:45 AM
 



badge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Conference Divisions - Why Bother


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:49 AM
 

NCAA rules state that there must be 2 divisions of at least 6 teams in order to have a conference championship game.

2020 student level member

Brad Brownell: more losses than any other coach in school history.


crk

Super Bowl, CWS, NBA, March Madness, World Series...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:22 AM
 

The core of your argument is obviously correct. We always want the two best teams to play for the championship. The problem is that it calls for subjectivity and thus controversy (much like the BCS). Your criticism of the divisions can be applied to virtually every major sporting championship. The two best teams don't always play in the Super Bowl, but there is no controversy over the winner because the process is objective. The second best team might not make it to the final game, but the best one does.


Yeah, that makes sense...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:39 AM
 

I guess for College conferences, I wouldn't mind more regional teams, like an ACC North, and an ACC South. The teams with the two best records play. If there are tie breakers needed, then weigh in division performance. I don't know, that probably wouldn't work either.

The thing I really don't like is the teams not playing one another for years. It defeats the point of a conference to me. I keep using UVA as an example, b/c Clemson and the Hoos aren't playing after 2014 for years. I think some solution to have the teams in different divisions play more frequently would be a good thing. I'm not sure of how to do this...Logistics come into mind, such as scheduling and traveling, but I'm sure something could be worked about so everyone is playing everyone at least every 3 years.

2020 student level member

The ACC should have Promotion and Relegation

[1]
Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:24 AM
 

Two divisions of 7. The bottom two teams in the top division drop down and the top to teams in the bottom division replace them.

Problem solved!


Now you're getting somewhere.


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:42 AM
 

Bump the league schedule up to 9 games, with the top division teams getting that extra league home game while they're in that division (a reward for on-field success), which would allow teams to play each other at least once every 3-4 years minimum instead of the 6 year rotation we're on now. Top teams play each other on the field during the season every year. There's too much emphasis on the ACCCG game - one game per year - instead of the 12 games. Let the ACCCG be a David vs. Goliath style game. If the lower division team wins? Awesome. They've proven it on the field that they're the champion. The Atlantic and Coastal BS can go by the wayside and the casual fan could actually make sense of how our league is structured in football.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I like what you two are saying...


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:49 AM
 

Those are really cool ideas, especially allowing all the teams to play one another more frequently. That's really the gist of what I was getting at.

I probably should not have said "Clemson was robbed" in my original post. I just was trying to say I don't like it when a team with 3 losses in the conference gets to play ahead of a team with 1 loss in the conference.

2020 student level member

That would still likely happen with a Promotion/Relegation


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:53 AM
 

style set-up. Division teams would play each other (6 games), plus 3 cross-division games. Good odds that the lower division champion would have several losses heading into an ACCCG, with the upper division's 2nd place team probably higher ranked and possibly a better league record. I would use division records only though for the ACCCG game and overall conference records covering 3 years or so for division placement.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

No ACCCG should go one of two ways with the Promotion system


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:36 AM
 

1)Completly Gone
2)Top two teams from the top division, in a winner takes all rematch.


how about eliminate divisions....play a rotating schedule


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 10:52 AM
 

and the top two teams in the BCS rankings play in the conf title game? Eliminate the long periods of time not playing other schools.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: how about eliminate divisions....play a rotating schedule


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:03 AM
 

That is what I originally was thinking. No divisions, just rotate the games more frequently. I guess there could be a lot of unintended consequences. It could be really messy, and teams may end up with very hard or very easy schedules.

The idea of a Top / Bottom half is intriguing (mentioned a few post above). That would allow more rotation. The championships could get a little weird though.

The crux of my original post is that I do not like 3 loss teams playing ahead of a 1 loss team for a championship game. I also do not like that there are very long intervals of time between Coastal and Atlantic games (ex. Clemson vs. UVA after 2014).

2020 student level member

They did play, and it didn't turn out so well for my team.***


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:06 AM
 




If that's the case, just eliminate the championship game....


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:40 AM
 

and the team with the best record wins the conference. FSU should not have to beat Clemson twice to be champ. They already did and finished ahead of us. Why should we, sitting at number 2 be allowed a Mulligan in a championship game?

military_donation.jpg

who says Clemson is better than Miami? Seems they stood


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:17 PM
 

their ground in Tally far better than Clemson in the Valley.
21-14 Halftime.

military_donation.jpg

Fiat Justitia et Pereat Mundus


Re: who says Clemson is better than Miami? Seems they stood


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:32 PM
 

You can thank swoffey for this , he made sure we would have to beat FSU every year to win our division .

FSU was on fire when they came in , he also made sure we played GT , and knew we would have to beat VT , or MIAMI to win a championship .

Notice he limited us playing his tarbabys

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I agree with this for two reasons:


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:38 PM
 

1) We have won Division Titles that are absolutely meaningless because our division was full of crap-tastic teams, and that's just dumb

2) It would be best for the teams involved if the two highest ranked teams from the conference played each other. That way an upset doesn't send the favorite bombing down the charts. Also a win adds to your strength of schedule.

I like it. You might need to play with the numbers on how many "permanent" vs "rotational" teams you put in the balance. I'd say you need at least 2 teams that you play every year.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

PS - we play FSU 10 times, we go 3-7 at best.


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:40 PM
 

Their Defense flat out dominates our offense, period. Their offense is on par with our offense.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

NCAA Rules: You can't have a ACC-CG if you don't have


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:47 PM
 

divisions


Ah, that explains it. Some craptastic do-gooder wrote


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:48 PM
 

a rule somewhere. Great.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

tell me this... say the two best teams went to the ACCCG


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:59 PM
 

this season... us and FSU. And say we beat them. We would then be 1-1 vs them. I wouldn't like that. Would you?

I don't like the rematch situation for a conference title.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

THE TIGERS ARE IN MY HEART..... BUT THE DUCKS ARE IN MY PANTS....


Re: Conference Divisions - Why Bother


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 1:12 PM
 

To the OP, your ideas make perfect sense and anything is better than the current system. The division setup allows teams like USC to pretend they play Alabama, LSU, TAMU, and Auburn every year when they very rarely play them at all. In fact, we've played that group more than them as of late.

Further, the "rematch" argument holds no water. Why did we have to play VT twice to win the ACC in 2011? Because they randomly happen to be in the opposite division. That screwed FSU back then. FSU will have already beaten MIA this year, but they too will get a rematch. But we don't because we are in the same division.

The whole system is illogical and anything that allows for more frequent in conference (not division) play is more representative of where teams rank within the conference.


I like the idea of a "flex game". I think Francis would too


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 3:07 PM
 

You play
6 divisional games and 1 cross divisional game.

After 7 games they play the flex games. The Atlantic Division hosts the flex games in even years. The Coastal Division hosts the flex games in odd years. Games are always play on Thanksgiving weekend.


For the flex games:

A) Atlantic-1 vs. Coastal-2
B) Atlantic-2 vs. Coastal-1
C) Atlantic-3 vs. Coastal-3
D) Atlantic-4 vs. Coastal-4
E) Atlantic-5 vs. Coastal-5
F) Atlantic-6 vs. Coastal-6
G) Atlantic-7 vs. Coastal-7

Game "A" and Game "B" are known as the "ACC-Final Four".

The winners of Game "A" and Game "B" meet the next week in the ACC-CG.


For example: In 2013 the "ACC-Final Four" would look like this:

FSU vs. Miami
CU vs. VA Tech

With CU and FSU advancing to the ACC-CG.


Don't forget that money is always part of the equation.


Posted: Nov 15, 2013 3:11 PM
 

Every school wants a home and away game with the big name opponent for the ticket sales.

The home and away for CU vs. Miami will sell more tickets than CU vs. Pitt.


The "flex game" is a reward (in terms of ticket sales) for the teams that perform the best in the first 7 games.

The better you perform, the better your opponent will be.


Replies: 53  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 4 in Sec UO row K and a Lot 5 parking pass number 5579 asking 8500 for the package, email if intere...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2642 people have read this post