Phillips said the ACC could consider giving its regular-season champion a bye, and have the teams that finish second or third in the league standings play in the ACC championship game.
He said another possibility is having the top 4 teams play on the final weekend of the regular season: first place versus fourth place, and second place vs. third place, with the winners playing the following weekend in the ACC championship game.
So regular season champion gets the trophy or the winner of 2nd/3rd? What an upside down world we have let E$PN turn this sport into.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So the first scenario it wouldn't be the ACC Championship game. It would be the ACC Who Gives A Shit game.
it would be the "cfp please give us 2 slots" game
like it isn't that already
The ACC is innovating by integrating a meaningless bowl game directly into the conference schedule. Just another reminder that Jim Phelps was the genius who gave Pat Fitzgerald a huge contract extension at Northwestern while Fitzgerald was abusing the shit out of his players right under Phillips' nose.
This is a deeply unserious football conference.
Jim Phelps...isn't that the guy from Mission Impossible? "Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission should you choose to accept it is to screw up the ACC entirely. Completely FUBAR. This message will self destruct in five seconds, good luck Jim."
Spell check alas, Phillips doesn't even warrant being in the dictionary.
Jim Phillips...here's an idea...lets make an already mostly irrelevant game even more irrelevant.
Brilliant.
What is his salary? Talk about stealing money. He is a clownshow
Yes agree totally, he is a clown. However, when it comes to clownshows:
John Swofford is like:
I've always wondered whether a model where 2 conferences games would be vs/at a TBD ACC opponent would work. Meaning that 2 November opponents would not be known in advance, but you would know whether we are playing home or away. The ACC would then set up the best possible matchups between teams that haven't played yet in those games. This eliminates the 13th conference championship game but helps to try to add dynamic scheduling so the best teams get to play each other.
Forgive my language, but to have the 2nd and 3rd place teams play in the "championship" game and the top team get a bye is the most limp dick, pussy-ass move possible. Total coward move and if the ACC does that, I hope the 1st place team gets snubbed every time.
If they do that, I hope the playoff committee leaves out the top team and takes the ACCCG winner lol.
I 100% agree.
Dumb conferences do dumb shit. IIWII
Total 'Loser' idea that only brainless ACC officials could think of
The regular season champ getting a bye and having second and third place play for the trophy is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. How can you even call yourself a regular season champ when you're in a conference of 17 and only play 8 games?
However the other scenario floated in that article of having a mini playoff I could get onboard with. Top four teams in the standings play last week of regular season, then those winners advance to ACCCG. I think that makes some sense with no divisions in such a large conference.
This. I actually don't hate the playoff idea.
Problem with top four idea is it guarantees three out of four teams end up with an additional loss on their record. If it was like basketball that's fine but it's not.
It seems like the ACC is trying to trick itself into less opportunities for the playoff. The fourth team would essentially only have a role of "spoiler." This past season, four teams were tied for 4th place: Syracuse, Louisville, GT and Duke. Any of those teams beating SMU in an ACC semifinal would have been bad for the ACC, and conversely SMU beating any of those teams probably doesn't move the needle.
If the ACC doesn't change anything now, they will likely get 2 in the playoffs if the 2nd place team wins 10 games. Probably best to keep it that way.
Yeah this is why I think trying to add another conference games doesn't make much sense either. Internal cannibalism. Assumes you can beat the ODUs of the world though....
"Assumes you can beat the ODUs of the world though"
This is dumb, even for the ACC. This would drastically reduce your chances of getting 2 teams in, and would guarantee you never get 3 teams.
Just go to 9 conference games and increase your TV revenue you fucking jagaloon.
Honest to God, is Phillips still being paid by the B1G?
Clemson and FSU have repeatedly quashed the 9 game schedule. They have the built in SEC rivalry game and usually like to play a marquee team early in the season. That gives them the flexibility of two tune up games, and a 7 game home schedule most every year.
And by tune up game, you mean a meaningless game 11 that usually allows their key players a break before their marquee SEC season finally.
At this point as both of those teams are attempting to sue to get out of the ACC, screw them and their SEC rivalry games.
Don't think it requires unanimous consent. What's the worst that could happen, it creates a rift between them and the rest of the ACC?
I think historically GT and Louisville have voted with them on the issue as a bloc since they also have SEC rivals. But could be interesting if a vote came up again now with more members.
This is so fun and so dumb, I will absolutely watch it. Wish another conference had this idea and the ACC could carry their own weight.
The fact the 1st option is even on the table is absurd.
What a dumb conference this is
Bring back the computers! Ha!
I misunderstood at first. Didn't think it was possible to be that dumb. I thought they were adding a game before the championship game. 1st place gets a bye and plays winner of 2 vs 3. Thought they were being innovative for once.
The first idea seems kind of dumb, but it highlights that the BCS has made the conference championships irrelevant.
The second idea highlights how meaningless the regular season has become, as the BCS has become mostly a beauty contest until the playoffs. It also adds some meaning back into the ACC Championship game, and could be hard for the BCS to ignore, and at least the ACC would keep all the money. Unfortunately, it would likely mean lowering the seed of the champion in the playoffs in the event of a loss, where a spoiler team may not get much of a benefit.
The BCS is clearly trying to hoover up all the money and give it to the SEC and B1G, so I suppose it is worth considering some other options.
I ..*rereads*..
...is the ACC ran by idiots?
Dumb, dumb, dumb, stupid, terrible, dumb.
Spam, spam, spam, sausage, eggs, and spam.
I mean wouldn't it be smarter to just remove the championship game and all tie breakers so you could have multiple champions and then sue the CFP to makesure they all get in because they are all conference champions, I mean if we're gonna a get stupid let's go all out stupid.
That's not even a stupid idea, unlike the two ideas floated in the article. At the very least, you'd give all the first-place teams at least a chance to be selected, and you'd be reducing the number of potential losses for the top teams.
By the way, this is exactly how the Big East worked when we were a member, IIRC. There were potentially co-Big East champs, I believe.
Every conference below 12 teams had tie breakers to see who got the BCS bid. There were co champions but 1 got the bid. I'm saying remove that even and don't care.
Removal the ACCCG may help when trying to get 2-3 teams into a 12 team playoff, but I would have to imagine it would be a net loss in revenue for the ACC.
A. F$U goes undefeated, and left out of playoff last year.
2. Gets 2 teams in this year, one a first-year member. Both get booted in the opening round by several touchdowns.
c. I know, let's add some more L's to our teams before the selection committee can choose any ACC teams!!!
iv. Brilliant
I get the goal here... the ACC needs more revenue, and they're trying to find creative ways to game the system to maximize playoff bids.
I feel for Phillips - he's stuck - ACC teams want/need an extra $20m/year to reliably compete with the SEC/B10, but there's no get rich quick schemes out there.
Phillips lost me when he went reactive and lead the effort to add the leftover PAC teams.
Same goes for Sands and company for supporting that move.
Meh, I hate the move, but it was in the best financial interest of the conference.
Let's just put all conference revenue in crypto. Problem solved when BTC hits $200k, right?
Ah, the El Salvador solution in action.
If they're going to do anything at all it should be to just remove the conference championship game. The tie breakers sure would be interesting tho.
Having the runner ups play for 2nd place is insane. Who would even show up to that game? I hope the teams themselves wouldn't even get on the bus.
Why don't they just make an extra post conference tournament game for every team that does not make a bowl so they can have extra practices and have each on a different day when there are no bowls for extra TV revenue? Makes more sense than this stupid idea.
The goal shouldn't be more in the playoff per se, but more money for the ACC. I don't think these ideas improve the ACC revenue.
The ACC should do a "next-year" playoff. For the opening week of ACC play in the following season, play 1v2 (ACCCG repeat), 3v4, 5v6, ..., 15v16, and 17vND (because f' ND). The game would draw a significant amount of early season interest and the early loss to teams can be overcome prior to playoff selection.
The slate of games can be played week 2 or 3 of the season when the allotment of games is typically pretty weak.
And if the ACC has to kiss the ring of ND, let's have 1 v ND at the homefield of the ACC champ every year. And then 2v3, 4v5, ..., 16v17.
My thought is promo/relo each year, so only the top 8 teams play each other, and presumably one of them will be good and have a bunch of quality wins.
Na, you want the top 4 to play each other, early, for quality wins then you want them to play the worst teams to pad stats then let the middle teams play each other. It might get hard to move up but it would prop up the top. Three ACC teams with only losses to themselves is good. No one actually cares about good wins. How many 10 win p4 teams were left out of the playoffs? (HINT: BYU)
This is the opposite of how the B10 does it lol
The big ten has marquee programs
Somewhat inspired by the NBA IST:
Everyone plays 7 in-conference games and 4 non-conference games
At the end of the regular season...split teams into four different pods: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 and run four different 4 team tournaments. Games are on-campus for the first weekend. Team #17 has to play ND in South Bend.
Next weekend is the "ACC Festival" at a neutral site - 4 day event of non-stop football. Day 1 is the 15th and 13th place game, Day 2 is the 11th and 9th place game, Day 3 is the 7th and 5th place game, Day 4 is the 3rd place and 1st place game. Whore it out to corporate sponsors.
Unequal distribution of revenue to programs. 1st place get more money than 2nd place who gets more money than the 3rd place etc...players get a cash bonus based on where their team place through an ACC-wide NIL deal.
Some advantages:
the NBA IST is a made up meaningless nonsense thing that nobody watches. So nah.
We spurned membership in the SEC for this shit
LMFAO- nobody fucking goes to the game now in 30 degree rainy charlotte.lol. Let's put the 3rd place team in to draw less fans. hahahahaha- clowns. ESPN doesn't want an "acc tournament" style championship game. I'm shocked ND doesn't get our auto bid anyway.
They didn't?