http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-nine-vote-po...
In creating the ACC Network, ESPN required two scheduling concessions. The first, expanding the league's men's basketball schedule from 18 to 20 games, was announced last month at the network's unveiling.
Now it's time for the second, in football.
With commissioner John Swofford, ACC athletic directors are scheduled to convene via conference call at 9 a.m., Friday to deliberate, and perhaps approve, one of two options provided by ESPN: expand the league schedule from eight to nine games, while continuing to play at least outside power five opponent annually; or, remain at eight conference games and play at least two non-league power fives each season.
The ADs could deadlock and/or delay their decision Friday, but status quo is about to vanish. This is an either/or negotiated by ESPN, the ACC's primary broadcast outlet and partner in the network.
I hope the ACC can get back to a nine game conference schedule. Would be great to play in conference opponents more often. I do wish the AD's including our own Whit would agree to get rid of FCS games over time though.
Comments
my only request if they go to 9 is to ensure that a full division gets 5 home games or 5 away games in a given season. try to maintain SOME semblance of a balanced schedule.
that said, i do hope they go to 9 to increase frequency of teams seeing one another.
Unfortunately we still have Swofford as the commissioner and #GOACC as our curse so it won't make sense however they do it.
When the beat writers were first discussing this possiblity earlier this summer, they mentioned how the Atlantic teams with SEC rivals all play at home the same year, and then GT vs. UGA is always the opposite. So, in the years that FSU, Louisville, and Clemson would all be at home on Thanksgiving weekend, that would be the year that the Atlantic had 4 conference home games and 5 road games. In the opposite year, GT would be hosting Georgia, and the Coastal would have 4 home and 5 away.
was the ACC ever at a nine game conference schedule? I don't think they were...before expansion there was no need for it. I'm not a huge fan of 9 game conference schedules but it's better than the garbage we have now where we only play teams from the other division once every 7 years or something. That is the most asinine scheduling agreement I can think of.
Some teams are going to balk at it..namely those who already play power 5 out of conference teams (GT, FSU, CLEM)....because having to play 10 games against power 5 teams can make it hard on teams who play SEC rivals at the end of the year. I say nut up or shut up...but that doesn't change the fact they'll complain.
The schedule does need to be restructured but I'm not sure how best to do that. 9 game conference schedule just might be the answer...we'll see
if it never happened, it never happened...you feel me?
I'm just going off the proposed schedule where Tech would have gone to Tallahassee after that great game in Lane. Had tickets and everything lined up. Maybe with the change Tech can also get UNC and Duke back to alternating years in VA and NC.
It's like saying TCU was a member of the Big East at one point in time.
Incredibly, you can say the same for San Diego State
And Boise State. SDS was a package deal with them.
The benefit of this decision is that either way, FSU, Clemson, and GT still have to play 10 P5 teams. It's either 9 from the ACC + 1 or 8 ACC + 2. So if they don't really have any justification for complaining unless they're worried about more frequently matching up with a stronger ACC team. Where with the 8+2 system, they could kind of game the system by scheduling Purdue or Kansas consistently.
valid point. So they can take a risk and schedule Purdue out every year for the next millennium (ECU, anyone?) and hope they never get good.
Or just cycle through home and aways with poor teams like Kansas or Purdue. Every P5 conference has weak teams. The only problem is if they can't schedule with one of them, then they have to play a team that's equal or better than the average ACC team. It's probably in their best interest to take the 9 game schedule. That way they only get hit hard when they play Notre Dame. But, that can be debated.
I think the concern from those that have an SEC rivalry game is Notre Dame. On the years they play Notre Dame, they would have 9 ACC + 1 SEC + 1 ND, leaving only one cream puff.
Personally, like most others here, I would like to see the 9-game schedule in order to play the other teams more frequently.
Or...make ND count as a conference game? Call it the (8+1)+1 plan. where you have 8 conference games plus 1 conference OR ND game and 1 out of conference P5 game.
Don't think thats allowable. ND has no shot at the ACC championship therefore you can't count their games as conference games.
If our conference forces us to play someone, it should count as a conference game. And before the ECU jokes start, that is a self inflicted wound, not an ACC dictated one.
i tend to agree. i would be ok with the (8+1)+1 model assuming it can work as far as actual scheduling. I'm not sure what happens if you have 9 teams playing 3/7 teams from the other division while 5 teams are only playing 2/7 teams from the other division in a given year.
meh, those jackasses at ACC HQ made the mess by letting ND stay "independent," they can figure out the complications of scheduling in light of it.
You would have to change the number of ACC teams that ND plays per year to make the math work. You would probably need to have ND play 7 ACC games a year, and flipflop between the two divisions. But that wouldn't work, because if they play all of the Atlantic teams in a given year, then that's the ninth game for all of them, and there's no one left for the Coastal teams to play in their ninth game.
In case anyone is having a hard time envisioning this scenario, let's use this year's schedule. We already play BC and Syracuse. So, our ninth conference game would pick a team from the pool of FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, and Wake. However, all of those schools would have had their ninth game filled by ND, meaning there's no one left in the pool.
Perhaps it can be "fixed" by having ND play 3 teams from one division and 4 from another, but good grief, now we're getting way too complicated.
Not to mention the headaches it would induce in the tiebreaking procedures for determining who goes to the ACCCG. And you know that the ACC will always find a way to get down to the 5th level of tiebreaking.
I think FSU, Clemson, GT, and Louisville's reasoning against is valid. That being said I want to see us play the other ACC opponents more often, I wish we could just scrap the cross-divisional rival.
FSU, Clemson, GT, and UL. One of these things is not like the others. Wait, Kentucky is in the SEC?
I'm not sure how I feel about this yet.
HOAT out...
They need to go to 9 game in conference schedule. That way ACC teams can play the other ACC teams more often than once every 6 years. At a minimum teams should play every other team at least once every 4 years.
Wait... so if we go to 9 we get to break up with ECU?
Well let's just throw all the traditions out the window. What's next getting rid of the hokie pokie? /s so very much /s
Oh yes, please, thank you. My Hokie lost it's pokie a long time ago.
I think there is a pill you can take for that.
You sure can "Dole" it out. :--)
Maybe I should rephrase that. :--(
Finding P5 opponents could be difficult with an 8 + 2, doesn't every other P5 conference play 9 game schedules already other than us and the SEC?
am I alone in thinking we should just boot ND to the curb (read: get rid of the required 5 ACC games/year for ND) and go to a 9 game schedule with a plus1 for other P5 teams? I hate ND and they don't need the ACC. We shouldn't want them.
I think there's probably a much larger "make ND join full out" contingent.
but ND will never join full time. Why would they? They have a sweet gig as it is. Now that we've got our network, I say screw 'em and get rid of them. We used them to get the network, we don't need them anymore.
The only reason ND might ever join is if it becomes abundantly clear that in order to make it to the playoffs each team must win a conference title game. Until that happens (which, might be never) ND has no reason or incentive to join as a full member. I think 14 teams is too many for a conference and so 16 would DEFINITELY be too many. So I don't see the benefit of adding ND as a full time member because it will just create even more schedule headaches for the conference. We hate it right now because we only play the likes of FSU, Clemson, UL once every 7 ECU games. Adding ND full time means bringing in another team to make the conference 16 and thus complicating the schedule even further to the point of us rarely playing teams from the other side.
the ACC is stupid. 9 game schedules will help, but it doesn't solve the problem entirely. The conference got too big for it's own good.
Kind of agree, except I wouldn't care if we never played UL.
The relationship between the ACC and ND is symbiotic and not a parasitic one. David Teel stated that if it weren't for the association with ND, the ACC would not have gotten the ACC Network from ESPN. Given the college arms race the ACC finds itself with the other P5 conferences, I've gotten to a good place as far as ND's relationship with the ACC. Here is a direct quote from the David Teel article:
Here is the link:
David Teel Article
I used to agree with this, but I actually like it now. It's produced a lot of close/fun games, and every year a couple ACC teams get a chance to take down a blueblood program. Plus, I'm super pumped to go to south bend this year.
I like the fact that VT is playing Notre Dame. I also like seeing more of other teams in the ACC playing Notre Dame.
Did Notre Dame get a sweet deal? Sure. So far, though, it's worked out for both Notre Dame and the ACC. Swofford played the long-game with the Notre Dame arrangement. I don't know if it will ultimately work, but in the mean time everyone is getting something.
Look forward to going to ND game this year (right down the road).
Uggh, neither.
Preferably: 10 game ACC schedule, 2 P5 opponents, 1 1-AA team open scrimmage in August
Pretty damn good: 9 game ACC schedule, 2 P5 opponents, 1 cupcake
What VT has planned out in the future: 8 game ACC schedule, 2 P5 opponents, ECU in perpetuity, cupcake
Worse: 9 game ACC schedule, 1 P5 opponent, ECU, cupcake
At least we would get FSU/Clem more often, but at the cost of a PSU, Wisky, Michigan, WVU, UMD type of game in the future.
Fuck Matt Ryan.
I'm still open on this, but first impression is that either of these two options is an improvement.
We may have to sacrifice the ECU game some years, but if that's the price we have to pay, we'll just have to choke back the tears and do it.
Edit: After some thought and reading a couple of articles, I'm on board with the nine ACC game format. More VT vs Clemson and FSU is a good thing.
on your edit - Not sure I agree - playing them in the championship would be enough - not sure I want to play the best team in Atlantic twice in one year, though it did work out okay when it was BC. /s
If you beat them in the regular season, maybe you don't see them again in the championship.
well, it seems to have worked out great for Miami and FSU, I mean they play each other every season and then have to do it again in the ACCCG, right?
9 conference games plus 1 P5 game still leaves you 2 games to do what you want. Rivalry, cupcake, ND every third year, I-AA whatever it's shameful this hasn't already happened.
I want to see a 8 + 1 schedule, where the ninth game is a random cross conference opponent not on schedule. All the random games are played on the last weekend of Oct, Halloween. It's called "The Scariest Week in College Football" or "The Torture Bowl" or something clever, because you don't find out who you play until the weekend before. If you played away one year, you automatically get home the next. The home program must prepare the hotel accommodations in advance for the opposing team and there is a deal with the regional airlines for 1/2 price flash sale on tickets.
Let's put a little more drama into the mid-season.
And the reaction of all ACC athletic departments at the thought of organizing this:
the awesomeness far out weighs the logistical issues, plus would make for a hell of a rating spike on the new ACC network
I'd like to go 8 games, but without the cross over opponent. To keep the FSU/Miami rivalry going, we could trade GT to the atlantic for FSU.
I'd also ask the ACC team to require each team to play 2 P5 teams each year, and a max of 1 FCS.
So on board with this
I feel like everyone is forgetting/dismissing G5 opponents. I'm over playing ECU every season just as much as the next guy, but college football is not just P5 conferences. Let's not forget where CJF came from(no knock to his pedigree) and how much we enjoy watching film of his(Memphis') upset of ole miss. That never happens within some of these aforementioned schedules. I'm all for taking the FCS game off the schedule, but we need to play a G5 opponent. It's good for college football, it's where we came from, it's where our head coach came from, and there is no shame in that.
My preference is either an 8 game schedule with NO CROSS division rival game or a nine game schedule. It is absolutely pathetic that a player can attend for 5 years (counting redshirt) and never play some other ACC teams.
9 game schedule with no cross over game sounds great to me.
I agree, but they would probably want to redo divisions if they remove the cross-over rivalries. I would like that, but not sure the conference is wanting to do that
Not sure they can come up with schedule that isn't better for us than current alignments.
David Teel has come up with a few.
Announced Wednesday. Vote not until Friday.
Speculation intensifies!
Will Fuente use this to announce that starting QB? Am I reading into this too much?
I'm afraid that if they don't vote for a 9-game ACC schedule, Lawson will transfer.
You shameless ho. :--)
This offseason is cranking off hot memes like a Foxconn factory.
Too soon, Brah!
Hope we get to play more of the powerhouse teams, i.e., Clemson and FSU.
Go to a 9 game ACC schedule, make the cross confernce rivalry game a real rivalry, so LOLUVA has to go to the Atlantic, get rid of the D2 game and ECU and play the toughest schedule you can play. When we are paying the kind of money we are paying, I want to see the best. Then when we win, I will know we are the best.
I like the sound of that, especially dropping ECU/D2 and playing some tougher teams.
FYI guys, FCS is not D-II.
D-IA: FBS
D-IAA: FCS
D-II
D-III
All different classifications.
Jk. I do think it's funny that if you aren't a P5, everyone assumes you are D2.
As much as moving UVA to the atlantic would be funny, they have been playing UNC for a LONG time. I think the loss of that game would kill that move.
...or their annual loss to Duke. Which used to hilarious, but is now totally acceptable.
Wait... the more I read into it, ESPN made a mandate to us. We need to adjust to one of the two following scenarios:
1 - 8 Conference Games + 2 Games against Power 5 schools + 2 discretionary games
2 - 9 Conference + 1 Game against a Power 5 school + 2 discretionary games
Either way, it should create better schedules for us. Hopefully it allows us to break up with ECU, but the more I think about it, we'll likely continue to see them as one of the discretionary games regardless every year. Also heard there might be some real outside the box thinking in the works, where maybe FCS games could be abolished, where schools get to schedule them for the Spring Game or some kind of Preseason exhibition that doesn't count towards ranking, record, or standing, and then have the regular season consist purely of games between Power and Group of 5 games (with the unannounced goal to eventually eliminate the Power 5/Group of 5 games as well)
yeah unfortunately I don't see us getting rid of the ECU deal. Oh, well. Hopefully now that Ruff is gone (because, why?) the ECU game will be easier to win going forward.
I don't know if we'll get that preseason game you speak of. At least, if it happens, it'll have to happen across the board and not just in the ACC. If the ACC allows teams to play a pre-season type of game all the other conferences are going to have to do the same thing. I just don't see it happening.
I want to beat ECU so badly this year they regret signing a 50 year home and home with us and try to get out of the remaining games.
70-0 would be nice
Arrrggg, you got it maitee.
Even though the mandate only has two options, that doesn't prevent the PTB from changing how we pick a champion, right? Still open to ACC tinkering is which two teams go to Charlotte, FCS rules, how to deal with ND scheduling, and division realignment.
I have no problems with a 9 game + 1 Power 5 + Group 5/ND (when they are due) + Discretionary. I think a requirement to schedule at least a Group 5 team when not playing ND is a good acceptable rule. There are bad Group 5 teams for the UNC's and NC State's who schedule powder puffs as much as they can.
The discretionary can even be a FCS team as far as I am concerned. I like watching those games as much as the nail biters against OSU. Against an FCS team, I can generally see the second team (and maybe third team) players get valuable experience. I don't think a ban against FCS teams will fly as we have UNC, GT, and FSU who generally schedule at least 1 if not 2 FCS teams a year.
Here's the thing, we don't have any FCS teams on the schedule past 2021. There is an empty slot in 2022, and then we're full in nonconference until 2026. So, we're probably moving away from that anyway. (I just want to make sure we keep that Richmond game on the schedule in 2021 for family/personal reasons.)
What the ACC mandate would do is probably cut down on the ECU/ODU combo deal, which we get in 7 of the next 9 years. (2020 we only get ECU, and 2021 is that magical year where we get neither -- seriously VT/ACC, don't do anything that will mess up with that awesome schedule.)
I could live with those results.
And Whit stated in his recent interview with Sean Labar that VT probably needs to tinker with our soonest future schedules. Makes sense.
Same interview where he explains how we are in better position than most with future P5 opponents. I can see VT supporting the 8conf + 2 P5 voting bloc based on our future schedules with so many P5 teams often in the same year. We will move them around but even then, the years with ND will be so tough; I can't imagine another ACC game in those years plus our P5 slate..
8+2 is the much better option. The occasional extra game vs Clemson or FSU is more than offset by not having the occasional extra game vs WF or Syracuse and instead getting an interesting OOC opponent like Arizona or Michigan.
Thinking long-term, I agree. Sure, 9 games means we play our conference opponents more often which would be nice, but when it comes to the playoff and putting ourselves in contention to have a tough schedule, I think playing 2 P5 teams will weigh heavier and will be what the ADs choose.
I think less than half of the AD's care what weighs heavier, because they do not believe they can be a playoff team. They may still like the +2 better because they can schedule other P5 in the same boat. Playing 5 teams from NC in a year does not get us respect, a better recruiting footprint, or primetime TV. We get as much from just beating UNC. Our cross-over rival sucks, and any plan to change that is a good one. But the +2 gives us a better chance to separate ourselves from the basketball first schools on the national stage.
9 games also means an unbalanced conf schedule.
8+2 is the best compromise option for all involved. VT fans should hope it goes 8+2 because VT/VT fans would absolutely be getting the long end of the stick with 8+2.
The reality is that we're likely looking at going to 9 conference games, because the 8+2 format would be too difficult to schedule when the other conferences don't have any incentive to schedule with us. We may have to go to 9+1 only because that's the most realistic to actually attain.
at this point i'd be fine with either...get rid of the stupid permanent cross-over game....it adds no value to the conference in any way. The ACC would be better off having 2 rotating games against non-divisional opponents each year. Keep the 8+2. For teams like GT, FSU, Clemson who have SEC rivals that will fill one of their 2. ND can fill one for 5 other teams. The conference, in most years, won't be hunting for that many non-con games against P5 teams.
the permanent crossover game would seem a lot less stupid if we played Clemson, FSU, or even NCSU. The fact that we're stuck with BC makes it craptastic, but Miami and GT probably love what it does for their strength of schedule and ticket sales.
individual teams can hate it or love it but when you look at what it does for the conference as a whole I don't see how it adds any value...it's a pointless gimmick and we should get rid of it. period.
TV loves the FSU/Miami game it brings in money like it or not.
one game. out of 7. if you get rid of the cross-over you get more interesting match-ups as a whole. sure FSU/Miami might not play every year but you'll get at least 2 or 3 good games each year instead of just one. Playing the same teams gets boring. Playing different teams adds value. eliminating the cross-over allows for (hold on to your knickers!) TWICE AS MANY different and interesting conference games for each team every year. So in the years you don't have FSU/Miami you might have Clemson/VT and UNC/FSU or Louisville/GT or Duke/Wake or UVA/BC. All of those games would be competitive and interesting to watch. I'd sure as hell watch most of those games. I'm not going to watch Miami/FSU every year...I saw it last year..I can watch it again next year...but if UNC and FSU are going to play I'm interested. I'll turn that on.
I agree, the current set up only makes sense if you're trying to boost the profile of certain traditional power house programs (FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT). Let's face it, Miami doesn't want to play the Syracuse, Wake, or BC any more than it has to. Everything about league expansion has been manipulated to put the "best" teams on a stage to shine from which schools are in which division to crossover opponents, to where they tried to hold the championship game for however many years in a row (FSU/Miami's back yard). Sadly, by the time one of those swung in our favor (the ACCCG in charlotte), we were coming down off our domination of the league.
Now you have FSU, Clemson, and UNC as potential league darlings (also, "Miami could be BAK this year!!!") so nothing is going to change that in any way hurts the league's chance to put one of them in the playoffs again.
So if we really want to throw some weight around, we need to get back to owning this league now that we have an AD that might actually do something with that clout.
There's no reason you can't grant FSU/Miami and UNC/NCSU exceptions for this process, and allow everyone else to have 2 or 3 rotating cross divisional opponents per season. And only count games against divisional opponents for standings, with cross divisional record being the tiebreaker, to deal with imbalanced schedules.
wouldn't it just be simpler to swap miami for ncsu?
But then you're going to tick off everyone in the Coastal who would have no annual matchup against either of the Florida schools.
Honestly, the best course of action is to split the divisions down the line by closest rivalry, and then create those as divisions with the final week of the season being Rivalry Week
Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Miami
Clemson - GT
Virginia - VT
NCSU - UNC
Wake - Duke
Syracuse - Pitt
BC - UofL
But UVA-UNC is the South's Oldest Rivalry That No One Really Cares About
No it isn't.
I like the idea of passing the crappy rival to the newest member. Screw U of L instead of us.
Exactly. The Pac 12 has all 4 California schools play annually even though they are split between 2 divisions.
But they only have 12 schools with 9 conference games. So, 5 division games, then 2 permanent crossover games, and they still have 2 games to rotate between 4 teams.
How does it make it more difficult to book teams? The SEC is in the same boat (which means more ACC-SEC games) and the option to schedule an ACC team as an OOC opponent is always on the table.
The only way I see 9+1 is if ESPN puts pressure on the ACC. But if the plan is for just 40 games on the ACCN (~3 per week), I don't see having enough content being an issue.
I don't think they should drop the FCS games until it becomes standard among all Power 5 conferences.
I'm pretty confidant the 8+2 voting bloc includes VT. We are in excellent shape with future P5 scheduling and Whit said this past week he wants to tinker our closer future schedules (ECU/ODU) in the Labar Q&A.
How do you stay healthy enough to beat UVa, or even going bowling, when you have 9 ACC games, Notre Dame, and a P5 opponent such as WVU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn St, etc. in same year.
1.) I'd rather have a cool home and home than another ACC team.
2.) I'd rather trust Whit to make 8+2 interesting and have a better national spotlight, a better chance in the ND years.... Than trust th ACC with any more scheduling.
http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/football/acc-s-deal-with-espn-may-threaten-odu-games-against/article_fe203350-3fd6-5fe4-935f-9577d001f056.html
"Tech athletic director Whit Babcock said in a Q&A with Virginian-Pilot blogger Sean Labar recently that "we need to look at our near-term schedule and see if there are games we need to tweak or move."
Also agree with the article stating the choice between ODU and ECU, which are scheduled In the same seven seasons, may boil down to playing in the 757 or not. ECU has done nothing for recruiting. Hope we thrash them this year and get out.
Hmmm...what if we could bolster the ACC even more with a conference clash with the SEC? We could keep UT as an annual foe. With FSU, GT, Clemson, etc. with SEC annual rivals, maybe we could expand this for all ACC teams. Would be interesting.
I think ND is stuck with us and we with them. If we added an SEC component, they would wave their wand of prestige and get a rotating SEC foe so they wouldn't be left out.
Not sure who mentioned it first, but I like the idea of 8+1 only if you don't play ND. What ND probably didn't realize is that they will be a measuring stick for ACC teams that did not play each other. The ultimate common opponent.
Most of my emotions fall around one major theme: playing Clemson and FSU more than once per seven (or so) years. This scheduling was botched, badly. This is an opportunity to resolve some of the issues.
As Fireman, and possibly others, stated, Swofford is still the guy in charge and it won't be resolved as good as the ideas and thoughts are on this thread. He will mess it up.
Reports say no decision reached today.
https://twitter.com/mcmurphyespn/status/764100921106235392
Looks like they have 2 years to decide give or take, Teel says most likely at October meeting.
not altogether surprising considering TKP can't even decide which is best
I'd like to see what the problems are here. I think if the ADs would come out and say, "This is how I voted: [vote] These are the benefits we will realize if we [go to 9/stay at 8], and these are the problems if we [go to 9/stay at 8]." I think we could optimize this pretty well if we understood the P&L, C/B, etc
With the lack of playing teams from the other division, and the other conferences going to 9 games (harder to schedule P5), I'm thinking 9+1 is the way to go for most of the conference. It just means the few teams with permanent SEC rivalries [may] have a tougher schedule in years they play ND.
And as mentioned previously, ACC still has the option of restructuring divisions or how crossover games are handled.
This isn't going to happen, imho, because many of the reasons have to do with other schools losing out so that some schools benefit greatly. It's a matter of business competition while pretending to be friendly to each other.
Hmm. Ground-hogged again.
Why is your gif going the wrong way?
Its going the right way. This is how it aired. The other gif is mirrored
Update from Teel:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-vote-footbal...
Makes sense that they don't have to rush the decision. They're not looking for anything to take effect until 2019.
But...I have to wonder about the actual content going to the ACC Network. Wouldn't ESPN still be picking the best matchups for the mothership? And isn't this diluting the number of games they can air on the primary channels, especially after losing the front half of the Big Ten package?
I think ESPN is putting the hammer down and saying if the choice is ACC vs ACC or VT vs ODU or ECU, they'll take ACC vs ACC any day of the week. And ratings wise it makes sense because Group of 5 and FCS opponents don't move the needle like Power 5 programs do.
It doesn't sound like that at all. If it was, the decision would have been made. There are only 3 ACCN games per week. There will be plenty to choose from.
Virginia Tech-invent the future. Wit should just propose the idea 8 conference games. But 1 of the 2 power 5 games can be a home and home non conference scheduled game. Want to play Clemson, then schedule it.
I know it was wake forest idea first but I think whit could make it a bigger appeal and more known for scheduling.
The problem here is that those games don't count for anything in terms of the ACC standings. You lose a lot of the prestige when there isn't anything on the line for any team not in the playoff chase.
If they go to 8+2 NC State is going to be scrambling to schedule 2 Power 5 opponents.
ACC fall meeting is scheduled for October 5-6, where we should get a decision on a 9 conference schedule.
Hopefully they land on 8+2, but with the ability to schedule a non-conference game with a cross-divisional opponent. Then maybe we'd see FSU, Clemson or Louisville on a more frequent basis...
I am still on board with the 9 game schedule and just tell FSU, Clemson, GT, and Louisville to deal. They aren't on tobacco road so their opinions don't matter anyway.
9 games would be sweet. Seems like the conference is getting
stronger and stronger. Though not the SEC we're certainly climbing.
This year the ACC is better than the SEC as a whole.
Yeah, their top tier is Bama...after that I'd say Tamu is pretty good. Not impressed with anyone else.
Either way is an improvement over the current policy.
Wes Durham was on the radio today saying that once the Big 12 fully disintegrates (sooner than later) Texas and ND would join the ACC. Texas would bring in a TON of money, so that might sweeten the pot for ND.
Atlantic Coast Conference
Texas?
The Gulf of Mexico is technically a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean...so yea, close enough.
Yeah, I considered the technicality but it just struck me as really funny. Because when you think Atlantic coast, you think Texas.
You bet your sweet ass. Texas is 'murica. ND on the other hand is just a pretender.
We'll just call it the Atlantic-Gulf Coast-Indiana Conference. AGCIC, for short.
Midwest-Atlantic-Gulf Intercollegiate Conference.
I can see Texas going independent before joining the ACC and agreeing to revenue sharing.
They looked at going independent the last time it looked like the Big 12 would fly apart and found it would be too much of a pain. It's hard to make a full schedule and find conferences to park the non-revenue teams. They'd have to get the Longhorn Network on more than 75 homes outside of Texas.
I'm sure it would be a pain, but they're one of only about three schools that I think could do well as an independent. I'm rooting for this, as improbable as it would be.
Texas as an independent gets us a lot closer to Texas vs. Texas A&M becoming a thing again, and the college football world needs that.
This isn't exactly like saying the sun will come up in the east or water is wet, but it's not exactly a bold or newsworthy prediction either.
Neither the Texas legislature nor the Governor will allow the sips to abandon the rest of the Texas schools. They don't all have to end up in the same place (see aTm) but if they don't all have a soft landing spot, no one's going anywhere.
I think the most likely outcome is that the texahoma conference adds Houston and others as needed, at least until (unless?) a breakaway republic happens. We keep the "power 5" concept for the foreseeable future and the playoff eventually expands to 8 teams: the five P5 conference champions and 3 at-large selections. The key question for the ACC will be whether we can put sufficient pressure on ND to join before that expansion happens. If not, they will stay independent and the ACC will add Cinci+1 to get to 16 (assuming the B12 didn't grab Cinci with Houston).
ACC North: VT, Louisville, ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, UNC, Duke
ACC South: Texas, FSU, Clemson, NCstate, WF, GT, Miami, LoLUVA
I could see a world where this could work with 8+2. This would put the ACC above the SEC and would be game over for the B1G. That is one hellova conference. Would geographically make sense and just in case OU has to come with Texas you could kick BC out and move GT or WF to the north to make room. No more cross division rivals. Play every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. just my opinion.
Uggh, Big East part deux.
Not gonna happen thank god.
Say what you want about the Big East but the Miami/VT games of the late 90s made the BE a beast. AND no West Virginia cousins to deal with. VT/ND/LU is a 3 headed beast that would make the north more than accomplished and a good counterpart to the FSU/Clem/Texas (and possibly OU) south.
That's great. If only Miami and VT still played every year...
Now let me repeat:
Uggh, Big East part deux.
Thank god it's never gonna happen.
a.) If the ACC could get away with geography as a divisional breakdown, they would have. The problem is that the schools align primarily on a North/South axis, and the ACC territory expanded northward greatly with all of the expansion of this millennium. So, the logical north/south divisions would lead to Old Big East vs. Old ACC. No one wants that. (The other problem is the cluster of 4 NC schools. You have six schools north of NC, and only 4 south of it. There's no easy way to create a geographical divide without pissing at least two of them off.)
b.) Taking UVA, GT, and Miami away from us on a yearly basis, but leaving Pitt and BC? No thanks. If you're realigning divisions while cutting out permanent crossovers, then you have to keep the natural rivals together.
Fair enough. So you keep UVA and VT together and FSU and Miami together. Who is clemsons X divisional rival?
Georgia Tech.
LoL that sucks for Clemson.
Imagine a season where your schedule would have ND/Louisville/Clemson/Texas on it, then have to face FSU in conference championship game? that would look just as good or better than Auburn/TaM/UT/Georgia then Florida in the championship.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-acc-football-sked-vote-pos...
Looks like David Teel thinks 9 games is likely to happen with Babcock switching his vote from last time. This article makes the case pretty well for his switch too.
Thanks for sharing...that was an interesting read. It looks more like Teel wants 9+1 to happen than anything. I can't say I necessarily disagree with him. I do think this tidbit about Clemson wanting 7 home games each season was interesting..
I like the idea of having 7 home games but for a 12 game regular season schedule that's kind of selfish and unrealistic
wow, that was quite an article for dropping two tidbits of new information in the last sentence (SU and VT likely voting 9 and sending the conference that direction).
Babcock def was in the camp for 8
That's them in a nutshell. Want to make sure they can play Troy and South Carolina State in same season at home.
At this point I'm ready to support just about anything that would piss off Dabo Swinney.
8+2 would be a scheduling nightmare. I know P5 matchups are popular, but I don't think many people realize how much of a nightmare it is to schedule them. It's telling that the staunchest supporters of that model already have an annual game with a P5. Everyone else would be scrambling. The only real solution I see would be if they allowed programs to count AAC opponents as one of the two P5 requirements. And in that case, our schedule looks exactly like it looks now. On the other hand, 9+1 would help it feel slightly less like the Coastal and Atlantic are in the same conference in name only.
It would be easy to schedule p5 schools against each other if we stopped letting schools control their own schedules. Preferably, let a national entity do it but at least let the conferences handle it. It wouldn't be hard at all to have a SEC/ACC week and an ACC/B10 week.
Good luck.
I think the scheduling concerns are way overblown and saying it's hard is a cop-out. It doesn't matter how hard it is, this is a league devoted to playing football, if you can't even schedule games then you're not doing your job. Those big time non-conference games against new opponents are one of the things that makes college football so much fun. Personally, I think it should be 9+2 with FCS games abandoned (or at least not counting towards bowl eligibility).
The only argument I have seen for keeping FCS games around is that their athletic departments depend on the money for their other sports. I wouldn't mind seeing a spring game scenario being employed so they still make some money and we get a preseason game out of it or something along those lines.
FBS schools will never pay that money for games that don't count.
Yep, and they're certainly not going to put their best players on the field, at risk of injury, if the win won't matter. So you're going to get the scout team from the FBS team vs. the FCS squad, with no one wanting to attend, just so the FBS team can pay money to the FCS team. That's a huge net-loss for the FBS program and I don't see anyone being that altruistic just to make sure the FCS program can keep itself running.
another big thing is that if you have to make a scheduling change once every other FBS school has more or less locked down their schedules, you can always turn to that many more FCS schools that may have an open date or be willing to shaft another FCS foe to make a payday against FBS.
There's also traditional/natural rivalries to consider.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards this thought myself.
There's 64 Power 5 schools in conferences, plus ND. I'm trying to come up with a quick dirty math example for showing how they can schedule, but it's not coming so easy. So I'm just going to break it down by conference, assuming that everyone makes a rule to schedule two P5 teams. And number of conference vs. non-conference games doesn't matter, because everyone has at least 3 non-conference slots in their schedule, and will likely be filling that last spot or two with G5 or FCS.
The ACC, SEC, and Big Ten have 51 schools to choose from to fill those two slots. The Pac-12 has 53 schools to choose from, and the Big 12 has 55.
It can be done, and for the schools who already have built in rivals across conferences, then they only have to fill one of those slots a year.
It would not be a scheduling nightmare....or certainly not any more of one that would exist with a 9 game conference schedule.
How can you argue that?
With a nine conference game setup, the ACC hands us a nine game schedule. That's it. That's the level of commitment have: accepting the schedule we're given.
With the 8+2, we have the mandate to schedule two P5 opponents, and no assistance in actually scheduling them. Of all non-conference games, a P5 is the most difficult to schedule. P5 programs often have their non-conference games scheduled years in advance. (See the future schedules section of HokieSports as an example.) So when does the mandate start? Immediately? Good luck.
And P5 non-conference games are notorious for postponements. Wisconsin has postponed our home and home two or three times now. With a two game mandate, if a P5 opponent postpones/cancels and we're required to replace that game with another P5, that's going to be basically impossible on short notice.
No, it's not even in the same zip code as far as scheduling difficulty is concerned. The 9+1 format would actually make scheduling easier for the AD (by reducing non-conference games needing to be scheduled from 4 to 3 each year), while the 8+2 completely handcuffs the AD and might damn well require the impossible. The only way an 8+2 might work is if they allow counting ND as a P5 opponent and also enter into an agreement with another P5 conference akin to the B1G/ACC Challenge in hoops.
FWIW the mandated start date for either model is 2019.
How can you argue that 2 P5's are a challenge? What big challenge was presented by Wisconsin's postponements? Probably about the same as the challenges that would be necessitated by adding a 9th conference game to schedules already locked for future years.
What "assistance" is required to schedule 2 OOC P5 games? It's basically a zero sum game. It's not like ACC teams are the only ones looking for games. And frankly if any P5 schools have scheduling problems, VT isn't going to be one of them. As I've said before, VT and VT fans comes out on the long end of the stick in the 8+2 format and less so in the 9+1.
The point is that neither presents a scheduling challenge. Either way, a 9 game unbalanced conference schedule - 5 home, 4 away or vice versa - is a much bigger issue than any scheduling challenge.
The need to fill a vacancy on the schedule on short notice. If you require that vacancy be filled with a P5, you make that challenge exponentially harder. Show me a P5 team that has an open non-conference slot in the next 2 years.
That's not true at all. Most every agreement for a non-conference games has an escape clause for situations just like this. It is much easier to cancel an existing non-conference game than it is to schedule one on short notice.
No other conference requires 2 P5 opponents. That means the ACC will be the only conference looking to double up on their scheduling, with no other conference having an incentive to do so. This is exactly the kind of scenario that would lead to the absurdity of two ACC teams scheduling each other as non-conference games. Except, that's already happening with the one P5 game requirement. If we go to two, expect it to become widespread.
That's patently false.
This is a much stronger argument. But I never argued against the idea that 5 away conference games is a problem. In the long run, it's zero sum, because we also get 5 home conference games every other year. But it's definitely an obstacle in those years when you have to travel in conference an extra time. The question is, is the difficulty of an extra away game that matters every two years worth accepting the logistical difficulties inherent to the 8+2 model. (Even if you deny that difficulties exist.)
via GIPHY
Well let's see...the Wisconsin games originally scheduled for 2008 and 2009 were replaced by the Nebraska series. The first rescheduled games for 2016 & 2017 were replaced by Tennessee & WVU. The second rescheduled games for 2019 & 2020 are replaced by Notre Dame & Penn St or Michigan (take your pick). And the games rescheduled for 2024 & 2025 are one of the 2 P5 OOC games scheduled for that year. So the facts say it isn't a challenge.
What does the next 2 seasons have to do with anything? The ACCN is driving this. Any change requiring adding 2 P5 OOC games wouldn't kick in until 2019 at the earliest.
Escape clauses? True, as they were written under the old environment. But can bet that if 2 P5 OOC are required those escape clauses will become far more restrictive - if for no reason than both schools know they need those games either by requirement or out of necessity for strength of schedule.
True that no conference requires 2 P5 OOC games...yet. But I'm not sure why that matters. Virtually every P5 school is effectively scheduling at least 10 P5 schools going forward and the math works out just fine. So whether it's 9+1 or 8+2 - and you throw in ND, BYU and the Service academies - it's still basically a zero sum game. It presents little challenge now and will present even less of a challenge going forward as ADs schedule games with more clarity about the future requirements.
How many non-conf ACC series have been scheduled so far? One? No one expects those to become common and those few that have been scheduled aren't solely being done due to inability to find an opponent. And to be honest why does it matter? If VT scheduled Louisville as an OOC series, would people really care if it didn't count against the conf record?
As a VT football fan, I happen to think that a 8+2 results in a more interesting schedule over time and doesn't add one more competitive imbalance to determining a conference champion. But if one prefers the games created by 9+1 over the 8+2, fine. However using the "8+2 is a challenge from a scheduling perspective" as a strike against the 8+2 is rationalization, pure and simple...particularly from VTs perspective.
lolwut??
haha you lost me right here...are you saying that since we successfully built the Golden Gate Bridge that the facts say it wasn't a challenge? Your logic is flawed, at best.
I think every single other thing he said speaks for itself. In the current environment it's difficult but doable as has been proven time and again. In the future, ADs would be prepared for those eventualities and provide backup plans and escape clauses and tighter negotiating. Saying it's hard is a cop-out. Judging from your screen name you're an engineer, and every engineer has been in this position before. Business asks for something to be done. You say it's extremely challenging for x, y, and z reasons. They stare at you blankly and say so, make it work. ADs get paid a lot of money to do this kind of stuff, I'm confident they can get it done. It ain't rocket surgery.
Okay let me start by saying that I don't really have a strong preference either way for 8+2 or 9+1. I will say that I dislike the current set up because there are teams in the same conference which we don't play more than once in a decade and that just seems stupid to me. The 8+2 doesn't alleviate that issue but the 9+1 creates unbalanced conference schedules so I kind of view those two options as having pros and cons that push.
I disagree with the sentiment that going to 8+2 isn't going to make scheduling P5s any more complicated. It is. Will it be impossible? No. Can we (VT) survive under that format? Yeah, I think we'll be fine. Whit has proven that he can play the long game. He plans ahead extremely well and he builds in contingencies for himself. I think we'd be fine in an 8+2 format. But there are other teams in the conference which may suffer. Especially teams like Wake which will have a hard time finding other P5 teams interested in playing them.
If the B1G, Pac 12, and Big 12 all go to 9+1 formats (if they haven't already) that seriously reduces the number of P5 teams that ACC teams will be able to find to meet their 2 game quotas. Especially since you can't count on every other P5 conference lining up to play all the ACC teams. I don't think Stanford is going to be very interested in a Home-and-Home series with Syracuse, for instance.
Let's say those 3 leagues go to 9+1. Let's say they just schedule each other and leave the ACC & SEC out. That basically leaves the ACC & SEC filling their schedules with each other for 8+2 (Yes, I know the SEC doesn't require it, but hey will be effectively forced to follow).
Then throw in the fact that ND, BYU, the service academies and maybe a few others could qualify as P5 opponents. That pretty much leaves a chair for everyone in the game of musical chairs.
You can't presume Stanford wouldn't have a series with Syracuse. Would you think LSU or Wisconsin would have a home and home with Syracuse? Because they do. Who would have thought VT would schedule a series with Arizona just a few years ago? The landscape is changing and intersectional games are becoming an integral part of every program's future scheduling.
If anything scheduling OOC P5 teams might be easier than OOC non-P5 teams.
it's easy to make it sound so simple...assuming all those other leagues comply with your limits
the problem is all 5 leagues are going to be trying to play games against all of the other 4 leagues....certain teams will be in higher demand than others and in the end it's very possible that during the game scheduling feeding frenzy some teams get left with too many open slots on their schedule and no teams available to fill them.
You can't really play the "zero-sum" card here because with so many open slots being in one conference the available slots outside of that conference are bound to fill up faster and you'll be left with multiple ACC teams with open slots that can only be filled by.....other ACC teams?
Even SEC bottom feeders will be more desirable games for those other leagues than some ACC teams. The SEC has done such a great job pounding their chest over the last decade that a Wisconsin would happily sign up a Kentucky in order to get a win vs the vaunted SEC conference. The ACC doesn't have that luxury.
All in all I don't necessarily disagree with your overall view that 8+2 is better than 9+1. I just don't agree with how you're getting to that. It is a mathematical truth that forcing the ACC teams to each have 2 non-conference P5 teams scheduled every year is more challenging than only requiring 1 per team per season. I'm not saying or arguing that it's impossible. It is just absolutely, without a doubt, more complicated. I think your argument that "shut up, it's not that complicated you're making a mountain of a mole hill" is just wrong. And unconvincing.
I also disagree that playing more conference teams from our own conference is a bad thing. I hate that we only play FSU, Louisville, Clemson, etc. once every decade. I know you've complained that if we changed that we'd also have to play low-lifes like Wake and Cuse more often too. But you know what?; they're still conference teams and we have to take the good with the bad. There has to be give-and-take. You can't get anywhere if you can't compromise. So your argument that there's no benefit to playing more conference games isn't great either, IMO.
Your strongest argument is that the 9+1 format creates unbalanced conference home-away slates every year. It still works out to 9 home games and 9 away games on a 2 year cycle but every other season is going to suck. Especially for teams like Clemson, FSU, GT, and Louisville which have annual SEC rivals. It's obviously a less-than-perfect solution.
One of the reasons FSU and Clemson have lobbied against the extra conference game is because they like to have 7 home games every year. I understand why they want that and it sounds awesome as a fan and AD to have 7 home games every year. But it's arrogant and selfish...clearly a money grab and in the spirit of compromise it's a really crappy reason to dig their heels in and refuse to make a deal. In a regular season containing 12 games it really makes sense that half are home and half are away. ADs and fans don't want to recognize the logic there because it hurts their wallets or their feelings depending on who you are. But the simplest, most logical, solution is to have an even number of road and home games for all teams. Period. End.
I'm not going to pretend that I know of or have the magic solution to our scheduling woes. I don't. I wouldn't be sitting where I am if I did. There are definitely different pros and cons to the options available and depending on what your interests are those pros and cons will have different weights. You can't make everyone happy all the time so there will be winners and losers when all is said and done. That's just the way it is. The only point I really want to make is that your arguments aren't very convincing.
Okay, I revise it for you. The facts indicate it's certainly not an insurmountable challenge - and given the number of slots to be filled by the changes and the caliber of competition that filled those slots, it was a fairly minor challenge. And one might be able to argue that the additional work actually worked out to VT's benefit.
The point is that in the end, the facts show that "scheduling" is largely irrelevent in a discussion of the pros and cons of 9+1 vs 8+2.
I didn't realize how normal it was to have 7 home games each year only really paying attention in detail to the Hokies scheduling. I guess it's more to do with our almost yearly neutral site games and the home and home with ECU.
The 7 home games among the blue bloods is pretty common. Sometimes they even manage to pull 8 home games in a year. I know Tech has had 7 home games in at at least one season (2004) before. Right now our 2018 schedule has 7 home games. We just don't have deep enough pockets to pay G5 teams to just come to us like the blue bloods do, or I am sure Whit would be trying to do 7 games on a regular basis. The 2004 season was part of a home-away-home with Western Michigan, so maybe that is an option.
This change would make for more interesting VT games and one would think probably help both in selling tickets and recruiting.
Any schedule that lets us play FSU and Clemson more often is alright in my book. Louisville is the flavor of the month right now, but there is always one of those in the Atlantic.
Any schedule that adds a good OOC team rather than Syracuse, WF, or NC State more often is even better in my book.
Like East Carolina? ODU?
It's OK on occasion, but bad as an every year thing.
I agree that ECU every year is terrible. It's also irrelevent.
We know know that all ACC programs are going to have to have 10 P5's on the schedule regardless of whether it's 8+2 or 9+1, so the impact on future ECU games will be the same whichever direction the league chooses to go.
And when I look at the currently scheduled and potential P5 OOC games, they are better than adding an extra Atlantic division game each year.
That jives with what I've heard. I also heard that ECU will get the ax if the 9 game schedule passes.
#sauces
I'd buy 20 bottles of that sauce no matter the cost!
I got a picture of that sauce for you.
I'd sing "Dead Man's Chest" as they sailed off into the sunset.
Hmmmmm - After the thorough beatdown we laid on them this year, I am a little torn on this.... I think we owe them about 10 more years of ass whuppings.
I think we are only scheduled for 7 more years ass whuppings, would that be enough for you?
7 games should be enough to get our combined margin of victory up to 1k points
I also heard that ECU will get the ax if the 9 game schedule passes.
And what have you heard will happen if the 8+2 passes? Because one of the two options is going to happen - and logically the impact on the ECU series should be the same either way, no?
9 + 1 is fine as long as we don't lose any of the p5 OOC games on our schedule. That is currently:
17: nWVU
18: vND
19: @ND
20: vPSU, @Mich
21: vMich*, @WVU, vND (awesome!)
22: vWVU
23: vPurdue, @Rut
24: @Wisky, vRut
25: @PSU, vWisky
26-29: UMD; 29/20: Arizona
*Interestingly enough, Michigan's future schedule does not have a P5 OOC road game for 2019. It would be nice to bump them up two years.
That list just reminds me that we play [no] division foe ND more often than we play Atlantic division foe [everyone].
Those games are collectively far more interesting than games against FSU, Clemson, Louisville...AND WAKE FOREST, NC STATE, AND SYRACUSE.
and ECU and DUKE, and GT.....
....what are we yelling about here?
How does 8+2 or 9+1 impact playing any of those teams more or less frequently?
Don't people get it? The outcome will either be 8+2 or 9+1. ECU will either remain or be dropped from the schedule regardless of the outcome. Playing Duke and GT every year will be unchanged regardless of the outcome.
let's take a look at why we're playing ECU so much - because it was easy from a scheduling standpoint.
you keep chirping about how you don't like the Atlantic division teams and you're more excited about playing more variety of P5 teams. Fine. But there are boring teams in the Coastal too (my inclusion of ECU was TIC). Your argument that playing Atlantic teams more often is ho-hum just doesn't resonate with me. Sure there are more exciting teams out there than Wake, Cuse, NCST...there are also more exciting teams out there than Duke, LOLUVA, GT, UNC....are you suggesting we just go independent so we can make up schedules with all the best teams in the country?
Worked in NCAA 14.
fair point...I concede my position
Few, if any of those games will be affected by a new conferencing schedule. The main victim will be ECU or ODU.
So, in a given year we will be taking ODU or ECU off the schedule and replacing them with FSU, Clemson, Louisville, WF, NC State, or Syracuse.
Yes, it is a crapshoot as to who we get, but it's also a crapshoot as to which version of those teams we get. What if we get Wake Forest in their one good year and they go to the ACCCG? And then the next year, we get Clemson, who is en route to a 1-11 season?
This would be worth the price of admission (as long as we weren't their 1 win).......
No, it's not a matter of taking ECU and ODU off the table and getting FSU, CU or Louisville a little more often. It's a matter of taking another interesting P5 OOC opponent off the table and getting FSU, Clemson, Louisville OR WF, Syracuse, or NC ST a little more often.
There are OOC P5 programs that are just as intriguing as FSU and Clemson. Wouldn't it be cool to have teams like, say, Auburn and Iowa or Oklahoma and Arkansas on the schedule?
Even with 8+2 it's not as though VT would never see FSU or Clemson - or suddenly be seeing them every year with 9+1; you'd still only see them in Lane maybe once every 6 years. In the end, I'd rather have two interesting P5 OOC games each year than getting FSU, Clemson, or Louisville (since when is Louisville that interesting?) a little more often.
I like how you act like it's so easy to get a home and home with P5 schools.
I like how you act like it isn't. VT already has 2 on the schedule for 2020-2025 and 2029 - while 2026-2028 (a mere 10-12 years from now) already have 1 locked in. The only reason the next few years don't is because VT wasn't trying to schedule two P5's when those schedules were being made. VT would have no problem filling those remaining slots if the league goes to 8+2 because VT is going to put butts in seats.
If all P5's go to requiring 10 P5 games (and after Friday they all will except the SEC - and they'll soon follow), it's a zero sum game, no?
EDIT: 2022 still has an open date. If the league goes to 8+2, my money is on Whit already ahead of the curve on that one waiting to see how things play out.
if it was so easy to schedule P5 teams then why 1)did we get saddled with ECU long term? and 2)is there a need to schedule games 15 years in advance?
And some of those scheduled games have been moved...what's to say a game scheduled 2 years from now doesn't get moved and leave us high and dry?
yeah, okay. What about Wake Forest? Are they going to have an easy time finding teams to fill those remaining slots? Cuz they definitely are not guaranteed to put butts in seats. You can't think solely of your team...each team in the conference must be considered...this isn't a VT-centric league.
Hmmmm, so I should think of every team? You do realize that this is exactly why it's still an 8 game conference schedule?
Yes it's hard. Once I'm not driving, have had more than 4 hours of sleep and not on my phone I'll find the Whit article where he says exactly that.
I got you Fireman. This link should cover it.
OK, can't resist...
This isn't about games that are, for the most part, already scheduled. This is a long-term thing.
Teel laid out part of the problem - with the B1G, Pac-12, and Big XII already having a 9 game schedule, those schools only need to fill one other slot to meet the requirement of 10 P5 games. That's currently 36 teams who would only need to find 1 P5 game.
If the ACC & SEC are 8+2, that's 28 teams who would need to find a combined 56 games against other P5 programs.
Things get extremely difficult if teams from the B1G, Pac-12 and Big XII only end up scheduling their 1 required P5 game.
It's not 28 teams to fill an additional 56 slots. It's 28 teams with 2 slots available looking to fill those slots from a pool of 28 teams with 2 slots available.
Dude, look at our future schedules...starting in 2020, we already hit the 8+2 in our scheduling, and some years we have 8+3. Starting in 2022, the other two games are ODU and ECU or FCS. We're not losing a P5 opponent for another. A few might get moved around, but I think the only one that runs the risk of falling off is Wisconsin, but that's only because I don't think they really want to play us, since they've literally pushed that game off for 20 years.
The scheduling mandate would take effect in 2019.
I feel like 9 conference games is a precursor to eventually expanding to a 13 game regular season schedule.
Yeah, there is something historic about 4 OOC games. When it was an 11 game season, almost every conference was 8 teams so you have 4 OOC games.
I don't know that it's historic so much as it's financial. Those non-conference Mid-major & FCS games were cash cows. However for a variety of reasons, they're becoming less so now.
I like the 9+1, because we need to play other teams in our conference more than once every 6 years. If they do this, hopefully for fairness they will have everyone in one division have the same number of ACC road games. One division has 5 road games and four home games, and then the next year have 5 home games and four road games. Clemson can still have 7 home games in years they have 5 ACC road games, if they align the South Carolina series with the ACC schedule. If every odd year they play at South Carolina, then every odd year the Atlantic Division should have 4 ACC road games. I know this would get complicated with FSU, Louisville, and GT too and someone might have to one-time play two straight road games against their OOC rival, but a one year correction in the schedule would result in nice future scheduling.
Oh, lets go down this rabbit hole, thanks for bringing it up!
Personally, I think divisional records should be the only thing that counts for divisional standings should be your record in divisional play. Records in ACC play can get slotted into one of the various tiebreaker scenarios, but only count divisional play for standings. Should eliminate the issues with unbalanced schedules, and doesn't mean that teams like GT are always at a disadvantage when their permanent crossover is someone like Clemson when VT is stuck playing Boston College. It should allow the cream of each division to rise to the top each year to provide a better championship game.
Thoughts?
I actually really like that idea. However, I can see where it will get tripped up. If GT wins the division and lost their cross divisional games only to have to play a team they already lost to in the ACCCG, is that really a good idea?
Worked out well for us in 2007 and 2008. I mean, rematches aren't ideal but they're inevitable. I just think the best bet for the ACC going forward is to level the playing field for divisional records, and let everyone kind of go wild in cross divisional play. Ideally, I'd love to set the divisions up so that everyone is cross divisional paired with their biggest rival (VT-UVa, Miami-FSU, UNC-NCSU, GT-Clemson, Duke-Wake, and then some mix of BC, UofL, Cuse, and Pitt) and have everyone square off during ACC Rivalry Week, which we could work with ESPN and the new ACC Network to promote the shit out of.
Hmm...it'd have to be a two part Rivalry Week, running the last two weeks of the season, to accommodate the SEC games.
Week 1: Miami/FSU, Clemson/GT, BC/Louisville
Week 2: VT/UVA, UNC/NC State, Duke/Wake, Pitt/Cuse, FSU/Florida, Clemson/SC, Louisville/Kentucky, GT/UGA
And Notre Dame could be facing off with Navy, USC, or Stanford.
Shoot, they could schedule that now.
I want rotating divisions. Two pods of four, two pods of three. Pods based on geographical proximity. A pod of four gets grouped with a pod of three for two seasons to form a division. The division plays a home and home with each other.
After two seasons, they swap out, so the pod of four makes a division with the other pod of three. Another home and home ensues.
The pods with the same number of teams never gets paired. Instead, they cycle through each other as rivals to fill out the rest of the conference schedule.
Oh, I love this idea as well...
The problem is that, with so many of the ACC front office having degrees from UNC, I don't trust them to accurately plan and implement something that can't be easily drawn in crayon.
This is the plan I like. Keep all the rivalries in tact, but still play everyone in the league regularly.
If you can schedule the ND game as an of division conference game, then 9 game ACC schedule plus a P5, Group of 5 and a FCS opponent makes a lot of sense. Would ACC schools accept ND game as such.
They might go for counting ND as a P5 opponent. They'll never let it count as one of the 9 conference games, because it isn't.
No. It just doesn't work. Besides, that type of scenario basically turns ND into a conference member, which isn't happening.
From further above:
So...
1.) Divisional record.
2.) Head-to-head.
3.) Conference record.
Let me just look over and see how that would have affected any ACCCGs...
2005 - Instead of FSU vs. VT, we would have gotten BC vs. Miami. Both Miami and VT had 1 loss in division, but Miami had head-to-head. Even though FSU beat BC, BC was only 4-1 in division, while FSU was 3-2.
2006 would have been the same. (GT/WF)
2007 - VT still would go for Coastal (only loss was to Atlantic). But, we would have played Clemson, who had 3 conference losses, but only one of those was from the division. BC lost two divisional games.
2008-2011 would have been the same.
From 2012 on, I'm just looking at the Coastal, because the Atlantic was usually taken by FSU or Clemson running the table. I'm not even looking at 2012 because of all of the sanctions on the Coastal side.
2013 - VT would have gone to the ACCCG as Coastal champs instead of Duke. We were 5-1 in division. Our loss was to Duke, but they were 4-2 in division.
2014 - UNC would have gone instead of Georgia Tech. While GT was 6-2 in conference, both of those losses were in the division. UNC was 4-4, but went 4-2 in division. UNC beat GT in head-to-head.
2015 would have been the same since both teams were 8-0 in conference play.
Changing up the tiebreakers certainly makes it more interesting in figuring out the champ.
Already covered this when this topic was first started: http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/434348#comment-434348
I believe that this is all about getting ND to join ACC. The timing is right, ND was highly rank and is floundering without any hope of reaching college football playoff. A potential coaching change is looming for them and the time is right for ACC to turn some screws. Lets add Navy and ND to the ACC.
I don't think ND will ever join as a full member unless it is abundantly clear that they can't make the playoff as an independent (hint: it's not abundantly clear)
They may be regretting the set up they have with a requirement to play 5 ACC teams since they could all give them trouble (so far they are 1-1 and could go 2-3 very easily)...with the national perception that the ACC is among the worst of the P5 conferences it's a bad look for ND to have a losing record against that conference. But that's beside the point.
I don't think ND will even sniff the playoffs for several years and I don't see them joining the ACC until they go undefeated and get left out of the playoff for not winning a conference or something.
Or if they routinely get a winning record vs. the ACC, but keep losing three other games a season. Then they might think their chances of a 10 win season would be greater in a conference.
with the way the ACC is improving I have a hard time believing ND will ever go 5-0 against the league AND lose 3 other games which is basically what it would take to fulfill your example. ND will be in denial over the need for joining a conference if they're losing 3+ games every year. They hold themselves in such high regard that they'll make coaching changes to try going undefeated before they'll join a conference IMO
That perception is changing... rapidly
The Atlantic division is widely regarded as one of the toughest in the country right now with Clemson, UofL, and FSU doing their thing (FSU being 2016 FSU isn't helping, but they still get the name cred for the time being). And quietly the Coastal is shaping up as a pretty tough beast as well with Miami in the Top 10, UNC in the Top 20, and VT ranked. Even if the trio in each beat each other up this year, we should just be trading ranking spots, which should really help our our perception fast.
I don't disagree with you..but the odd thing with sports fans, for some reason, is that for the ACC the conference needs to have sustained success instead of "flash-in-the-pan" years. People need to see the ACC dominate non-conference match-ups for at least 3 or 4 seasons before they really believe the ACC is one of the premier leagues.
I don't agree with that logic but that's what we're up against as a league.
Ditto.
The ACC Wheel of Destiny is put to bed. ACC is legit. I'm just pissed we didn't have a role in legitimizing it.
I wouldn't go that far....is the ACC getting there? Yes, I believe so. I don't think it's quite there yet, though.
oh, don't you worry, we will!
The ACC is legit, and VT definitely had a role in legitimizing it. And will continue to have a role.
Atlantic is legit, but the Coastal is still TBD... We place someone from the Coastal into the Playoff within the next couple years and the conference as a whole should be legitimized, especially if we continue seeing the Top 10 matchups in ACC play that we've already seen this year.
And you better believe VT will have a part in it if/when the Coastal is legitimized.
The SEC has been resting on Alabama's laurels for years, basically since LSU was finally unable to overcome their ineptness on offense. The ACC has two national championship caliber teams in FSU and Clemson (FSU being down this year notwithstanding), and one on the cusp in Louisville. Doesn't matter that they're all in the same division; the SEC has been elevated by the SEC West for a decade.
don't forget the most important part...perception is shaped by the media, no matter how much you might not want to believe it. Until ESPN starts treating the ACC like it's legit the national perception that the ACC is a little brother P5 conference is going to be tough to change.
I was listening to ESPN radio during games on Saturday, and they reiterated that the ACC Atlantic might be the toughest division in the country. They were quick to dismiss the Coastal, which is fine, because we really have done nothing to prove ourselves.... yet
Lets not pretend the SEC wasn't rolling before Alabama became Alabama. They had already rolled up 4 natty titles in 6 years (3 in a row) before Alabama got their first of the Saban era. They already had the reputation of being the best conference, and Bama just drilled the point home, and reinforced that the best team out of the SEC was the best team in the country.
That being said, that perception is starting to shatter as well, and the SEC is very quickly falling to "Alabama and a bunch of others". While that's good for Bama, that's absolutely not good for the conference.
All we need to do is win out, and beat undefeated Clemson in the ACC CG. There would be a strong urge to put two ACC teams in the playoffs.
Three.
So VT still has a chance and ND is out of the picture.
I think the best solution would be to go 8+2 and drop the crossover "rivalry" game. Outside of FSU and Miami is there really a significant one? Clemson & GT? I've lived in Clemson country for 8 years and its never really felt like rivalry. Maybe UNC and NC St? I could see the pack getting worked up about it, but I doubt UNC would care that much.
I hate the permanent cross-over "rivalry" but the logistics involved in getting rid of it would create more of a headache than the 8+2 vs 9+1 debate
To get rid of it but also continue some of the long-standing series would require some shuffling of the divisions and I'm certain there are all sorts of little political ins and outs that I (probably we) am unaware of going into those sorts of changes
In an ideal world we get rid of the cross over and have an 8+2 format. But this world isn't ideal. We won't be getting rid of the cross overs and scheduling 2 P5 teams consistently every single year is going to be a real challenge for some teams in the league. There is a good reason the ADs are split on this decision. There are pros and cons for both and those pros and cons are weighted differently depending on where you're sitting at the table.
9-1 establishes the frame work to add ND and another into the ACC as a 16 team conference. Then scheduling can be reworked to 7 divisional and 2 crossover after they join. It has to be the only reason it's even up for vote. It will make it easier to transition.
It's up for a vote because ESPN required one or the other to make the ACC Network happen. There no long play here.
I don't see ND ever joining...not until they go undefeated and don't get a playoff spot...which if they did go 12-0 I don't think they would be left out of the playoff (and neither do they)
The ACC needs ND waaaaaay more than ND needs the ACC. They're raking in a ton of cash that they don't have to share with anybody else at the moment and they would be absolutely stupid to give that up. I don't see how the ACC could sweeten the pot enough to entice ND to join. The only potential leverage that I believe the ACC has is that they can put their champion into the playoff. But at this point there has been no precedent set for independents being left out of the picture due to lack of a conference championship win. If I'm ND I'm going to postpone joining a conference as long as possible and fatten my pockets in the meantime. If I go undefeated and don't get a playoff spot then I'll reconsider...until then I'm perfectly content with where I am.
I could see ND want to join if they finish up with 1 loss and are left out because they didn't get to play in a conference title game while a bunch of 1 loss teams (or possibly even a 2 loss team from the SEC) got in over them due to their performance in championship week. That is a very real possibility.
that's true. It sill requires ND to win 11 games which I find unlikely the way things have been going for them lately
Yes, most of the crossover rivalries are a thing.
The ones that are not: VT/BC and UVA/Louisville.
WHY HAVENT THOSE TWO BEEN FLIPPED!!!!!
#goacc
Because flipping UVA to the Atlantic would eliminate UNC-UVA which is one of the longest running series in football.
Then again flipping VT to the coastal would eliminate GT, Miami, and UNC every year and give us FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. Too many good teams in the Atlantic?
No just flip BC and Ville as crossovers for us and LOLUVA.
Don't have to move teams between divisions, just change the crossover. We play Louisville, UVA gets BC. Doesn't affect anything else.
Pretty sure he means flipping the rivals, making Louisville our crossover and BC UVa's crossover.
Seems like flipping the crossovers was the intent.
now don't hold me to this, I'm just spit-balling here, but I think he was talking about flipping crossover rivals.
Personally, I'd be okay with switching things up to make VT/Louisville a thing.
Well this just got weird as shit.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-schedule-sta...
So for some reason the same crap schedule could remain in place. This hurts EVERY team not named Clemson or FSU.
Honestly, it's probably because those two teams whined so much about it.
The current arrangement is complete crap. Either 9-1 or 8-2 are better options. ESPN needs to step in and force one or the other.
How is it good for business for ESPN to show VT vs ECU every year, when it could be VT Clemson, FSU, Louisville half the time, or PSU, Michigan, Wisconsin etc. At least half the time.
So our first act in the partnership with ESPN on the new network deal is to tell them to piss off when they ask us to amend scheduling policies to have a better product to put on the network.
....because this will end well for us....
We're willing to bend over backwards for ESPN with ACC Basketball by increasing the conference schedule, but somehow don't give a shit about football, which is the largest revenue-generating sport, when there is money lying on the table if we just play one more freaking conference game. This is exactly the same stupidity that ended the Big (L)east.
I'd encourage everyone to take a look at this article, which was fairly enlightening given the current discussion:
http://gridironnow.com/2016-schedules-sec-fcs-power-five/
I hate the ACC
I don't really know how I feel about it yet. But I think there are arguments for the status quo.
I won't take credit for this statement, I'll just post this in full below as I agree with the majority of it (it's from another message board by a real-life rational Florida State fan... I was shocked too!):
I think a lot of the reason behind the exposure this season has been the succession of high-profile ACC matchups. Louisville-FSU, Louisville-Clemson, FSU-Miami this weekend, FSU-Clemson later, and so on. We need our best teams playing each other frequently. It adds credibility to the strength of the conference when mighty FSU (one of the most talented rosters in the nation) can beat an SEC team in Ole Miss soundly week 1, then be beaten by ACC opponents in later weeks.
We need more VT-FSU, VT-Clemson, VT-UL, Miami-UL, Clemson-UNC, UNC-UL, etc. More high profile ACC games = more national exposure and people realizing the amount of good teams in the conference. Going to nine games will help make this happen more often without the conference completely cannibalizing itself and its playoff hopes. No one wants to see all these FCS games, period. I think the 9+1 model is the best fit.
I can understand the line of thinking of "More high profile ACC games = more national exposure and people realizing the amount of good teams in the conference." That makes sense.
But by keeping the schedule at 8 games, the conference DOESN'T cannibalize itself. VT playing Clemson & FSU in the regular season is good for strength of schedule, but if you lose to both those teams you're out of the playoff picture before the ACC Championship. In fact, playing only 8 conference games might actually get two ACC teams in the playoff this year. If Louisville & Clemson both run the table from here on out, there's a good chance both are in the CFP.
Who knows how it'd turn out if Miami or VT played Louisville, but that's one more game where they could potentially take a loss. The more ACC teams play each other, the greater chance there is for them to knock each other out of contention.
I'd say the biggest challenge the ACC has right now is getting 2 teams to dominate the Coastal every year, and hopefully that's on the way to happening with VT & Miami. The less frequently teams from the Coastal & Atlantic play each other, the more meaningful the ACC Championship becomes. It doesn't help the conference's image to have Clemson beating VT handily twice in one season (a la 2011).
If we stay at 8, then we have to do away with the annual cross-over. Playing teams within our conference only once every 6 years is ridiculous. I think many people were hoping for the 9+1 because it would solve that problem.
Geez...let's just kick Pitt and Syracuse out. They started this schedule problem, and no one really wanted them anyway.
We had the same problem before those two joined.
The problem of not playing FSU or Clemson enough, and playing BC too often.
We went from playing Clemson 4 times and FSU 3 times in 8 years, to only played each once over the next 8. And that schedule adjustment happened when Pitt and Syracuse joined.
That same expansion pushed an FSU game off of our schedule in 2013.
That's not the math of adding two teams. That's the math of misusing a scheduling event to reshuffle matches in an unacceptable manner.
#ACCmath.
Prior to expansion, there were 2 rotating slots for 5 teams. After, there was only one slot for 6 teams.
Seems to me that part of the problem is the insistence on cross-divisional partners using up one of the slots (which most teams don't need) as well, not just the addition of two teams.
There are also many other possible arrangements that have been proposed, including one that eliminates divisions altogether. Take a look at this proposal for the SEC: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/14/11895556/sec-football-schedule-format-divisions-rivalries-rotation
The expansion didn't push FSU did it? I thought the whole Miami away, UNC at home, Duke away rotation moved that game?
And that was all due to adding two teams to the league. We went from 5 division games to 6 divisional games.
We already had GT, UVA, UNC, Duke, and Miami on the schedule. BC was the permanent rival. Maryland and FSU were our rotating Atlantic games. In order to fit Pitt into the schedule, one of those two had to be dropped. ACC decided that we should drop FSU.
*cough* Wake Forest *cough*
Except you can't do that because you'd lose FSU-Miami, Clemson-GT and UNC-NCSU, and those schools would throw a literal shitfit if those annual matchups were eliminated.
Exactly. So your options to fix not playing teams within your conference are to
A) stay at 8, remove the cross-over, and realign the divisions
OR
B) add a 9th conference game
But it looks as if they have chosen Option C - don't fix the problem
I think this notion would be true if we were still under the BCS. A loss or two essentially ends your hopes for the title game, and staying undefeated and winning pretty were all that mattered. With the playoff committee, strength of schedule is one of if not the most important criteria. I don't think a loss or two necessarily will knock a team out of contention for the playoff if they were against good competition. Eventually, I see the P5 narrowing to the P4 (goodbye Big 12) and every conference champion essentially being guaranteed a spot. If that does become the case, I want more ACC competition and games between divisions with the ultimate prize being winning the ACC title for a playoff berth. Right now, we essentially have two separate conferences with how infrequently we play teams from the other division. Getting rid of the permanent crossover would help, but that also hurts FSU-Miami, GT-Clemson, UNC-NC State. I don't want to sacrifice a whole season's worth of meaningful and competitive games for the uncertain at best hope for a top-10 ACC title game.
Sticking with the 8+1. Sigh.
What a joke, between this and the conference not being willing to move around cross division games we might as well not be in same conference as Louisville, Clemson and FSU. All because Clemson wants to play 2 cream puffs a year.
I think this was done just to keep FSU and Clemson from whining about not having a 7-game home schedule. Second, I think the ACC leadership honestly doesn't really care about football as long as FSU and Clemson are happy and in contention for the playoff. It would take too much effort, creativity, and thought for John Swofford to do anything to fix the scheduling issues, so instead he just chooses to do nothing. As long as ACC Basketball is top in the nation, FSU and Clemson are happy, and the interests of the Carolina teams are satisfied, I think he just prefers to not do anything at all.
This wasn't even an option until Swofford put it back on the table. I could probably guess how the voting went:
FSU and Clemson obviously for status quo, major football influence
Louisville and GT in a similar scheduling situation but with less influence, still this favors them
Swofford probably was able to rally the Carolina mafia because they don't really care about football anyway, so there's the 8 majority
VT, BC, Miami, Pitt, 'Cuse all Big East refugees getting screwed. And UVa just kind of tagging along, but they had voted in favor of 9-game in the past, so there's your 6 minority.
Oh I can't wait for Clemson to get smacked down by someone, preferably by our hands
Your first conclusion is a simplistic rationalization. The second is an incorrect paranoid conspiracy rationalization.
The decision is based on a vote of AD's (and it's been a close one at that) not a decree from Swofford. Do you honestly think Whit's swing vote (which was to remain at 8 in the past and presumably currently) is driven by what Swofford or the league office think vs what is best for VT?
No, but he can certainly influence the vote, and he did so by putting this option back on the table, probably knowing that he had a majority to side with it.
So even though the majority apparently voted to not go with 8+2 or 9+1, it was Swofford's evil doing that allowed the majority to vote as the majority? Makes sense now.
Swofford's influence was getting this in as an option.
VT will be fine. They already schedule enough good OOC games. But the current ACC cross-divisional program isn't really all that great for VT.
It's Matt Ryan's fault.
Fuck Matt Ryan.
Seriously, 4 games in 2 years, including 2 championships, and people start thinking it's a thing.
Really? Do I need to remind you?
I was talking about VT vs. BC as a whole. Outside of 2007-2008, who has ever given a rat's ass about that "rivalry"?
Fuck Matt Ryan.
That's an understatement.
Because a majority of the partner schools weren't in favor of a change, it's all because Clemson wants to play 2 cream puffs? Excellent analysis.
Ever hear the expression squeaky wheel gets the oil? Clemson has complained over and over again about demanding 7 home games every year, FSU,GT to a lesser extent don't want to add to their SEC rival games but this charge to do nothing was lead by Clemson. I don't know any fans but theirs that prefer to see home games against Troy and South Carolina State rather than neutral or away games against another P5 or an in conference foe.
Probably less to do with fans' desires and more the school and athletic department. I'm sure no Clemson fans enjoy thrilling FCS matchups with SC State, but the school knows they have a hot team right now that is a guaranteed sell out, so they want to ensure they get that seventh game revenue stream every year. This is simply Clemson looking out for Clemson. Their own self-interest is more important than the financial incentives for the conference left on the table from the ESPN-ACC Network. It's probably going to take pressure from ESPN in order to change the ridiculous politicking in the ACC.
No. I can't say that I've ever heard that particular phrase.
FSU and Clemson each play 2 P5 schools from now until 2020. (Except FSU in 2019, which has room to schedule). All their schedules beyond 2020 are open, and thus can schedule 2 P5 teams in future if they so desire. So, I'm not sure this argument is valid.
Because Clemson wants 2 easy home games every year. They would drop a P5 game and keep 2 cream puffs if they had to play more ACC games.
but why would they vote against 8+2 if this is the norm for them?
but I thought that wasn't even an option...?
Read up some and you'll see
the acc to ESPN:
Does Swafford's son still work at Raycom? Maybe he's trying to tank the ESPN deal so they can lock in the awesome setup we enjoy now.
Once they made that an option, it was clear to me that they'd go that direction.
I'd have much preferred EITHER the 9+1 or the 8+2.
I guess we get to keep the ECU rivalry. Oh boy.
This is literally the one option none of us wanted. We're stuck playing each team in the Atlantic once every 6 years, without requiring extra P5 teams in the non-conference schedule. I feel like this only satisfies FSU and Clemson. My main question is who else voted for this? I'll be rather disappointed if Whit voted for this.
Also, why on earth did ESPN tell the ACC that they'd accept an 8+1 schedule? ESPN should recognize how #goacc the ACC really is and know that they could force the ACC into better schedule for ESPN. Doesn't make sense.
EDIT: I said "one option no one wanted." I'll clarify that none of us did. I'm sure Clemson is thrilled with this decision.
THIS! SO MUCH THIS!
disappointing. not shocking.
In other words, ECU on our schedule forever
Price Is Right horn
Bill Roth with a very hot take
Hold that tiger!
damn that is burning hot!!
BAH GAWD THAT'S BILL ROTH WITH A STEEL CHAIR
The reality is this:
Any school who wants 7 home games a year wants it for one and only one reason, and that's straight ticket sales cash, homey.
If switching to an 8+2 or a 9+1 made those schools more money, they'd do it in a heartbeat. This is not a difficult problem to solve. Which means either we don't know the real reasons why 8+1 is the preference or no one did the basic scheduling optimization to ensure profitability for all parties involved. This is not a hard problem to solve.
The bigger problem we have is that there are currently five major conferences pulling their individual members in a wide variety of directions based on regional power structures. The day that all four conferences come together to develop a nationwide system for problems like these is the day that it will all go away. The biggest problem we have with the entire organization of the system we call college football is that there are conferences trying to look out for their own best interests to the detriment of the entire industry.
I'm perfectly fine with this because Whit was always in the 8 game camp, and for this reason:
We could either entrust the ACC with MORE scheduling authority, or entrust Whit to do what's in the best interest of VT and nobody else. I trust Whit 1000x more than the ACC with any decision that could affect our program.
Whit has already said in summer interviews that it's time to tinker with some upcoming schedules (presumably the ones with both ODU&ECU) to fix the disparity between how some of our future schedules currently stand. We have a huge scheduling advantage over most programs because we have thought ahead with P5 programs. Some games will get moved around but at least Whit is the one doing it.
So.... we're losing money over this? Or just making less?
Leaving 500k in TV money on the table per school... which I'm guessing Clemson and FSU aren't worried about because they'll presumably recoup that with an extra home game?
Pshh.. $7 million is chump change
Lol
Our conference is so fucking clueless it truly boggles the mind. That's $7m per year flushed down the drain because Clemson wants to preserve a FCS opponent at home they have to PAY TO PLAY
What kills me is Clemson fans are going to buy the season tickets at the same price point 6 or 7 home games. So they will only lose out on concessions and parking etc. how much money is that really?
At least in years past at VT, season tickets cost the sum of the face value of the individual games, so adding another game would definitely increase gate receipts.
If Clemson only had six home games their fans down here would still be willing to pay same total rate for the tickets. Clemson claims there concern is number of home games, I don't buy it.
I don't get why the 8+2 was not selected? FSU and Clemson already play 8+2 without a mandate. Did the lower-tier teams really believe it would be too hard to schedule two P5 teams?
IMO, 8+2 was ideal and not as difficult to pull off as Teel and others speculate. The benefits of 8+2 far outweigh the "burden" of finding one team out of fifty that will schedule a game.
Quick math time...8 conference games, 4 of those at home. Ninth game is alternating home and away with SEC. Tenth game would be Notre Dame every three years or so, alternating. Let's just assume that any other home and home deals would fall around ND. Let's also assume the 10th game would be the opposite of the ninth game. Five home games.
Still leaves two games a year. One FCS, always at home. The other could be a G5, that they could probably get away with keeping at home.
Even if they want to play a neutral site game, set that up for years where you have the SEC rival at home. That way, it's replacing the 10th game, which would be the alternate site.
Hmm...was this really Clemson/FSU pushing it, or was it NC State and Wake Forest?
Do folks actually think there isn't something more going on here? Do you think Swofford, the ACC AD's and ESPN would suddenly let the status quo be the outcome unless there's another chapter to be written on this story?
I suspect there's more to come on this and as usual the message board posters, big money donors, and sportswriters who claim or imply they have inside sauces actually have no clue what's going on.
Are you speculating that Big 12 expansion might change the landscape,and Swof and the boys at the mother ship are waiting for the shoe to drop? The noise about the expected expansion kind of dropped off the radar a few weeks ago supposedly because nobody could agree who to invite. Maybe there's movement behind the scenes on that?
I have no inside info and I'm not necessarily suggesting anything in particular -nor do I have good guess as to where this is going.
But after thinking about it, there has to be something else up everyone's sleeve. On the surface this outcome doesn't seem to benefit anyone. Which to me indicates that there is something yet to come that will benefit nearly everyone.
If I had to guess I'd say those in a position of strength will benefit the most - and that might not mean great news for some of the Big12 folks. But TCU suddenly announcing it will vote no on expansion one day and then the ACC essentially abstaining the next day? Maybe that's a coincidence or maybe not. But IMO there's more to this ACC non-decision than meets the eye.
What decision in the history of the ACC would lead you to believe they are that forward thinking? This seems like another failure to actually stop being so indecisive and get ahead of the game. From poorly managed network, to bad crossovers, to sending Tech TO NC twice every other season, to not having the football schedule out until February to having teams that don't play at a conference foe for 12 years. What makes it seem like this is the turning point for quality decisions?
lol seriously... this is the same conference that blindly re-upped its regional TV deal with Raycom when everyone else was signing contracts with major networks, at a time where it just so happened that Swofford's son worked at Raycom as the head of customer relations.
No, the ACC is all about sheltering and protecting a select few of its members. Clemson and FSU wanted to remain the same, so it didn't matter that the conference would sacrifice $7m a year, that's what was going to happen. The fact that Bill Roth, who works at IMG and would know about the backdoor dealings that went on, publicly went off on Clemson after this is extremely telling.
Agreed. The problem the ACC currently has is that certain factions can politic and leverage their way into outcomes, and Swofford basically just wants to keep those factions happy. We have no real forward-thinking leadership in the conference. Basically every decision is made because a certain faction of schools lobbies for it. Clemson/FSU are basically bluffing their way into the status quo for their own benefit, not the benefit of the ACC as a whole. Swofford wants to keep them happy, so after much whining, he put this option back on the table. If the vote was only between 8+2 and 9+1 (as was originally the option) there was very likely enough support for 9+1, so hence the Clemson/FSU power play.
What happens if we have leadership who doesn't kowtow to the grumbling of a faction of schools and instead looks out for the betterment of the conference and its new network? Are Clemson and FSU actually going to leave the ACC and head elsewhere? No, because they honestly have nowhere viable to go and wouldn't get the same preferential treatment they currently receive here, so they can bluff their way into having their way. This is business as usual for the #goACC.
Until some other teams start contending for the playoffs/national championship, Clemson and Florida State are going to continue to have some clout.
I'm looking at you, Virginia Tech.
Even when we were consistently winning the ACC and repping the conference on the national stage, did we ever have any clout in this conference? This conference didn't want us in the first place (they wanted f'ing Syracuse), and basically set this whole thing up in hopes that it would be Miami vs FSU every year. We were basically a thorn in their side because the grand scheme didn't work out as planned. I got the feeling the ACC was just waiting for us to fall so FSU/Clemson/Miami etc could rise and lead the conference.
The biggest problem is we need a leader who is more interested in the growth and betterment of the ACC brand and not being the ringleader of the Carolina mafia.
So the ringleader of the Carolina mafia has been just waiting for 3 non-Carolina schools to rise and lead the conference?
Now it all makes sense.
Or you could also say that the leader of the Carolina mafia wants the conference to make a ton of money and revenue is generated the most when the highest profile football brands are atop the league.
Potato/potahto
Ahhh, I get it now...it's Head of the Carolina Mafia looking for three non-Carolina schools to lead - so everybody makes a ton of money?
Ummm, is this a bad thing or a good thing?
Could be bad, could be good. Even more importantly, it's true. Carolina Mafia wants a big seat at the table. So use your assets to generate revenue and maintain your seat at the table. You get what you want, your partners are happy, win/win.
Fair enough. But I still think it's option D: TBD.
To clarify: the direction of the conference is very basketball-centric, so the Carolina schools (and Swofford himself being a UNC guy) really drive that influence. Football is pretty much playing second fiddle (and now even leaving tv revenue on the table) just to satisfy a few influential members. Pretty poor prioritizing compared to the B1G and SEC.
So let me get this straight...the head of Carolina basketball Mafia - which controls the conference (presumably from behind a curtain in the land of Oz) - wanted/allowed the non-Carolina football mafia to lead the second-fiddle football side of the operation which generates 80% of the conference revenues much to the chagrin of the majority vote 8 non-Carolina mafia, non-non-Carolina football mafia?
How about something crazy like...this story is just beginning, not ending.
Given that the ACC is a mutt of small & large, public & private, northern & southern, urban & rural, football & basketball cultures (or neither) - I think that the ACC is in about as good a position as it possibly could be at present.
And, regardless of what reactionary, conspiracy everywhere, backward-facing, armchair conference commissioners may think, the conference is particularly well positioned for the critical next 15 years.
And ask yourself, why has there been no public comment by any ADs, ESPN or the league on any details of this decision? If this was some sort of forced compromise to keep FSU and Clemson happy, wouldn't somebody say something - even through backchannels? This has all of the same cone of silence earmarks that preceded most of the league's big decisions since the 2004 merger.
But think about where the conference and the schools within it COULD be right now and in the future with better past decisions.
That's total and pointless speculation. I like where it is now and where it's positioned going forward.
But okay, I'll play along...what realistic decisions do you think could have been taken that would have put the league in an appreciably better position than it is now? And if those decisions had occurred what would be appreciably different for the league and the individual institutions?
And please don't pull out pie-in-the-sky nonsense like getting the ACCN deal done at the same time as the SECN deal. That was never going to happen under anybody's watch.
Swofford...is that you?
-Realign the divisions in a way that doesn't require a permanent crossover, while still avoiding old Big East vs. old ACC.
-Don't reconfigure the schedule so VT gets GT, Miami, and UVA all at home in even years, while also putting UNC and Duke on the same rotation.
That's it? A divisional alignment that satisfies VT fans?
The divisions should be set up to the benefit of the better programs. The ACC should have divisions that promote all of the following, without compromise: FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, and possibly GT. In football, those are the programs that will drive revenue for this conference. If you set up the divisions to have the division races in most years come down to the winner of FSU-Clemson and VT-Miami with both being ranked matchups, you're actively setting yourselves up for future success.
So yes, in a way the divisional alignment should cater to and satisfy VT... as well as a couple others.
Yes, why think big when you can think small?
Let's just say for the sake of argument that a divisional alignment exists that will satisfy enough parties to vote for it over the current alignment. All that does is reshuffle the deck. Unless you somehow align it with all the better programs in one division or pod or whatever and the lesser ones in another, as a conference you're just trading one set of good games for another, one set of mediocre games for another and one set of bad games for another - and a very bad conference championship game.
How would that make the conference appreciably better positioned at present and going forward?
You want your good teams playing as often as they can in meaningful games. If you throw all the top programs in the same division, you're guaranteeing 75% of them will be left out of the conference title game. While you have a round robin among them over the season, only one can come on top, and there's a good chance that at least 1, possibly 2 of the matchups between all 4 are meaningless over the season. By splitting them up, while you might lose one of the matchups through the year (I would say VT and Clemson should be paired as well as FSU and Miami, but that's another story) you're also setting the stage for a defacto 4 team playoff for the conference title every year. And should anyone else in the conference be good enough to join that discussion, even better.
We kind of have that now, but the problem is that the conference muddied the waters by screwing up the schedules when they added UofL and Syracuse. Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT should never have to travel to NC twice in the same season, unless its for a cross divisional game, and you should try and split the home and away of the ACC Tier 2 programs in each division for them. Right now, this isn't the case. They should fix that.
Okay...maybe let's try reading the entire suggestion. Realign the divisions AND drop the permanent crossover. Everyone gets the rivals they want, and there's space to rotate through the opposite division within 4 years instead of 6.
well, for starters...the league could be padding their pockets with an extra $7 Million per year by actually following through on the 8+2 v 9+1 vote....but the leadership caved and let the league maintain the status quo. I won't continue to speculate about pressures that I don't know whether they exist or not but strong leadership sometimes requires forcing constituents into making a difficult decision they don't want to make for the betterment of the league...not caving in and letting them avoid making a difficult decision.
Of course this is more speculation since 1) we have no confirmation that it changes the money that the ACC will receive and 2) even if it's true, there's still plenty of time between now and 2019 for something else to happen and 3) the circumstantial evidence points to something else afoot.
But keep trying, since there must be plenty of actions and decisions taken over the last 12 years - which had they been handled differently - would have put the ACC in an appreciably stronger position for now and for the future.
Check out @McMurphyESPN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/783782703816708097?s=09
I have a hard time believing that losing 7 million dollars annually is just speculation. Major news outlets don't release this type of info without solid credibility
And I should take McMurphy's tweet as gospel because...? Most sports reporters have been hitting WAY below the Mendoza line when it's comes to the reporting of "facts", opinion, predictions in the conference business and politics game.
The likelihood that this info will turn out to be incorrect is very high.
Well said. And the more I've thought about it, the more OK I am with status quo.
If going 8+2 or 9+1 only nets us 500k more per year, I don't think it's worth it to give up something that seems to be working. Hell, if you believe the reports, we made over $4 milion playing Tennessee this year.
Would I like to play Clemson & FSU more often? Sure. But I also don't think it's worth pissing off your two most high-profile football brands just to make sure that we do. Plus, if VT gets back to where we want to be every year, we WILL play them. And there, it will mean even more than a few extra bucks for one more ACC regular season game.
Also, I think the arms race has spread to the point where the Coastal has programs with facilities to compete against the big boys in the Atlantic. We've seen VT do it, UNC has done it, and Miami just announced their commitment to building an indoor practice facility. I think the playing field is starting to level a bit and as long as the Coastal has 2 or 3 teams in the national conversation every year, I can live with playing Clemson/FSU less in the regular season.
The biggest issue we've had in recent years is that nobody in the Coastal has really moved the needle - well if UNC stays somewhat relevant, Richt gets Miami in the conversation, and Pitt & GT provide quality games, I don't think we can ask for much more. Switch the annual crossover from BC to Louisville and it's icing on the cake.
well, it seems that we're scheduling for 8+2 anyway, so if we're going to get an extra half million a year for doing what we're already doing, then yeah, why the hell not?
We're not always doing it. Plus, not all P5s are created equal. Nor are all G5s, which is why ECU isn't all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Here's our non-conference schedules through 2025:
2017 - WVU, Delaware, ECU, ODU (1 P5)
2018 - W&M, ECU, ODU, ND (1 P5)
2019 - Furman, ODU, ECU, ND (1 P5)
2020 - Liberty, PSU, Michigan, ECU (2 P5)
2021 - UofR, Michigan, WVU, ND (3 P5)
2022 - ODU, ECU, WVU (1 P5, with one slot open)
2023 - ODU, Purdue, Rutgers, ECU (2 P5)
2024 - ODU, ECU, Wisconsin, Rutgers (2 P5)
2025 - ODU, PSU, Wisconsin, ECU (2 P5)
Our schedules in 2020, 2021 & 2025 look good and potentially very difficult, but can anyone honestly say that Purdue & Rutgers get you (or for the purposes of this thread, ESPN) excited?
My bad, I meant we basically do this anyway starting in 2019 when the new rule would take effect. We'd basically have two extra games to schedule (one in 2019 and one in 2022).
Of course, when ECU joins the BIG12, then we'll really be set. /s
And this is one of the reasons I think something else is under discussion/consideration. When everybody (ACC and others) is either at or moving to some variation of a 10 game P5 schedule, the only logical explanation for staying at 8+1 is that it's not the final word.
Contrary to what the anti-Swofford crowd always falls back on rationalize their complaints, Swofford has generally led the league in a direction that makes it more stable and strong - and since 2004 he generally operates in radio silence with a little misdirection thrown in for good measure while doing so (which frustrates the hell out of the armchair commissioners).
maybe you're right...but I honestly think you're giving the ACC too much credit...I really believe they just thought this was the easiest thing to do....it was too difficult to decide between 8+2 and 9+1 so lets just not change anything
Clearly nothing will change your mind that the ACC could be in a much better position as a conference as a whole right now.
Facts could change my mind. But I just haven't read many. Just lots of complaints about tactics that seemed to make no sense at the time but ended up working out pretty well. Which is pretty much what I think is going to happen here.
Well, I doubt the addition of 2-4 teams to the Big 12 is actually affecting anything in other conferences. Since it's pretty well speculated that Houston is the first one in, and whoever else they get is not going to be big enough to move the needle much.
It would affect schools in other conferences because it would increase the number of P5 teams by 2-4. That's more P5 teams added to the pool of possible OOC games.
It's like not we're looking at the possibility of the Big 12 adding Notre Dame or stealing a current P5 school. Whoever they add is going to be from the Group of 5. Yes, it increases the pool, but it's mostly adding bottom feeders (outside of Houston). And the NC States, Wake Forests, and Baylors of the college football world can already find plenty of P5 bottom feeders to fill out their schedule with any conference mandates.
Don't worry too much about Houston...they're going to the SEC
What? It would add 2-4 teams looking for 2-4 games to schedule and it would add 2-4 games for other teams to schedule. It's a wash.
How is it a wash if the pool of P5 teams with which ACC schools could potentially play OOC games increases by 2-4, each needing 3 OOC games/year? That is 6-12 games/year (or 4-8 if each new Big 12 member plays 1 FCS school/year) that are now possible P5 vs P5 match-ups, when they were previously not, prior to the hypothetical Big 12 expansion.
Woulda been cool to have 7 home games and 9 ACC games, but also
it's fun to see which P5 schools we schedule each year. Also maybe
getting a more attractive option than ECU to add to the mix.
I think if anything this decision keeps us stuck with ECU.
Now Virginia Tech just needs to pretend we are Clemson and demand 7 home games every year as well. We too can add poor Mary's convent to the schedule to get killed opening week just like Clemson, UNC, NC State, Florida State, Miami, etc...
We already do that. See Liberty, W&M, Furman, etc. The difference is that we don't (or can't afford to) pay a G5 team to just come to us. So we do a never ending home&home series. Throw in a random mix of neutral site games and 7 home games becomes more difficult. As much as we may call it a selfish move, I think if Whit could find a way to schedule 7 home games on the regular I am sure he would.
We just need to play a couple more 2-1 home/away arrangements with G5 teams.
And not turn it into a 4 and 3.
Here's a thought. Staying within the framework of 8 games, what if the permanent crossover became a semi-permanent? Teams that want to keep their crossover rival can keep it, but the rest would get thrown into a pool to cycle through.
Although, it would likely only be BC and Louisville rotating between VT and UVA. I think all of the rest would keep their crossover.
interesting idea...I don't see Pitt and Cuse being tied to theirs either..
I thought so too for a while, until I saw this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh%E2%80%93Syracuse_football_rivalry
I think the end result will be something quite a bit more than most of the small ball suggestions which get thrown around on message boards.
I suspect there are many things going on right now beneath the surface and locking in a 9+1 or 8+2 right now for 2019 and beyond could just muddy the waters down the road.
I had absolutely no inside info before, but I stumbled into a brief 1 on 1 conversation over the weekend with someone who is 100% connected 1st hand to the decision to stay at 8+1. This was not with a "someone who works in an athletic dept" or "a big money donor".
Not surprisingly, the old adage "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" applies here as well.
Contrary to what I postulated, there isn't some big deal up Swofford's sleeve being worked on (and my sense was that I was getting a straight answer when I asked that question). And contrary to what many others have postulated it also wasn't FSU and/or Clemson pouting and saying they'd take their ball and go home.
My take from the conversation is that the dynamic simply hadn't changed appreciably even with the addition of the 8+2 option. At present, there aren't enough programs that think the economics of that model works for them. And at present there aren't enough teams that think the economics of the 9+1 works for them.
And contrary to what many folks have claimed - saying that 8+1 has hindered the league - the fact that the league HAS been quite successful with the current 8+1 format recently (the number of ranked teams this past week was explicitly stated as an example) made members comfortable with continuing as is when that option was presented to break the stalemate.
And when I asked "2019 is still 3 years off, right?, the response was "yes, definitely".
This is a very strong #sauce
respek