http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10930219/some-acc-teams-c...
Let me just say that while i would love to play FSU and Clemson more often, having them potentially not count as an "ACC" game is flat out stupid...UNLESS...this is done in conjunction with no longer counting ANY crossover games in the standings. only your 6 division games will count.
could that be step one in luring ND into a 7 game schedule and giving them ACCCG access via division championship? playing any crossover games would be completely up to them (we could make it optional for all 16 schools knowing that most will still play 2-3 every year without issue...hell, some may want to play 4 some years).
to ensure everyone HAS to play everyone every so often, the divisions would simply be comprised of 2 sets of 4 team
scheduling pods. every other year, the pods rotate to form new divisions. any rivalries lost in this shuffle can simply be scheduled as non-division games. hell, we could even keep a total ACC record next to the Division records in the standings just for the hell of it. bragging rights? tie breaker?
bottom line: playing ACC games that don't count will be stupid unless it is in conjunction with a bunch of other changes...
Comments
Agreed. Why play another ACC team if the win doesn't count towards your conference standings? What a fucking joke.
And if my Aunt had ballz she would be my uncle
We go through this what if scenario every year, seemingly. Nobody is going to schedule a conference non-conference game unless they're brutally desperate and don't have any other possibilities. Not gonna happen, nor would the ACC front office WANT it to happen.
As a conference, you build up your reputation by dominating out of conference and beating up on each other in conference play. By playing an out of conference game against an ACC opponent, you guarantee the conference one more out of conference loss.
This is just silly! Swofford & the ACC need to stop pandering and prostituting to Notre Dame. They are either in the conference as a full time member or OUT!
Just had a thought...maybe the ACC is bluffing the NCAA to help push their request to change the rules RE: scheduling for a championship game. i can't imagine the NCAA wants to open the scenario of conference teams playing non-conference games, so they just say F it, and let conferences schedule however they want to determine a championship.
then the ACC could disband the divisions and go to the 3+5 scheduling format (3 permanent rivals, 5 teams rotating on/off). that allows everyone to play everyone home and home every 4 years. they have to at least be considering it, no?
I'm all for it if it means we don't play Boston College annually.
Even though just a few teams in the conference would probably take advantage of it, I actually really like this idea. If NC State and Duke want to play more than once every 11 years, why not let them? Other than a "non-conference game between two ACC teams" sounding really silly, it's a good idea that doesn't rock the boat.
the ACC is a brand...trying to explain to the national audience that this week's dook-ncsu game, or this week's FSU-GT game, or this week's VT-L'ville game is not actually an ACC game is simply an necessary confusion to the brand. the only way it would work is to call them all ACC games (and even keep an ACC standings in the table for bragging rights) but only count division records/standings for the conference championship game. at least that is an easy story to explain nationally.
Agreed.
If it is a game between two ACC teams, the general public will view it as such and will not care about the semantics. Informing the sports media preseason, the audience 1-2 times during the broadcast, and that's it. You've got a committee determining the playoff, they'll have the info available. The confusion will be minimal unless the conference treats it differently. There are positives for this concept. First, geographically, it could be much better than trying to find scheduling with other power conference teams. Second, as a fan, I'd much rather play NC State than ECU or other mid-major teams, and their level of success is about equal. Third, I'd much prefer playing a cross-divisional foe than playing Indiana, Iowa State, or the like. This is an attempt to build on the conference identity and there has to be new perspective on how to brand conferences in the future. I think this is one that makes sense.
then only count division games for the purpose of division standings. then i'm fine with this. if we play BC, NCSU, and Clemson all in one season, but only BC and NCSU count, that's just weird. say we get stomped by Clemson but have an 7-1 ACC record losing to Miami...do you really think fans nationally (and even fans of Miami who may be 6-2 but had to count FSU loss) won't take notice? either all ACC games count, or only division games count...it can't be a random mix.
hell, what if the ACC approached FSU, Clemson and GT with this (would apply to all 14 schools):
you have to play 8 ACC games/year based on the ACC rotation, but only the 6 division games count in your division standings. however, in years ND is not on your schedule, you must play a 9th ACC game either arranged on your own with another AD or scheduled by the ACC if you request.
a back door route to 9 conference games.
They don't want a nine conference game schedule and they don't want a backdoor into a nine conference game schedule. The extra game if wanted by an AD will just be a game. When ESPN reports the conference standings, they will do so from what the ACC puts out. As for separating Division games out from conference games, I am not a fan of that either. Not all ACC teams are going to want to schedule another ACC team. Those that do likely are doing it for ease of scheduling and attractiveness to their fanbase. The majority of fans aren't going to care if its a conference game or not, they are going to care that they are a Duke fan and have bragging rights over the other NC State fans at the water cooler for a couple years (Not 11 years) and that the game was relevant to them.
Your plan would require them to schedule another ACC game if they aren't playing ND. Two problems there, one is giving any weight to the ND games as part of the ACC Conference Schedule outside of it being the only way they could get ND for all other sports, the second is that many schools voted for the eight game schedule for a scheduling reason. They actually enjoy having the varied schools come in for games rather than another ACC team. Look at Miami and Florida State, they aren't going to want to be forced to play another ACC team if they can bring in an SEC opponent in its place.
everyone voted for 9 games before the ND game was added...then they voted to go back to 8 (the year before 9 was going to start). ND is the problem because they would create a 10th game in years they are on the schedule. no one was opposed to 9 without ND.
There were several schools that were against the 9 game schedule regardless of Notre Dame. The vote in 2012 was 8-6 in favor of the eight game schedule and supposedly was the same this time around so obviously not "everyone". In 2011, when the nine game schedule was approved it was done with the overwhelming opposition of the ACC Head Coaches, since its the Athletic Directors that ultimately get final say. That vote was still supposedly 9-5 for the nine game schedule. The biggest things the coaches point to in their opposition is not Notre Dame, its the possibility of adding a team that could give them a loss, knocking them from playoff contention.
Agreed. The ACC is a brand, so why not feature that brand on TV more often?
What you're talking about is overcoming semantics. It's not an intuitive concept, but it's not a terribly difficult one to understand either. Instead of the confusing "non-conference game between two conference teams", the league could sell it as a "non-standings matchup" (or something better that someone smarter comes up with).
Also, the Big Ten is considering the same idea: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100856/big-ten-ad-meetings-day-....
It's not a new concept, and it's one that might gain traction across all the conferences someday.
Just switch FSU and Pitt and get rid of the cross divisional rivalry. That way Miami/FSU can continue their 'premier' rivalry, and we don't have to play stupid BC.
I think I posted that same thing yesterday.
I am also in favor of this being an option. The article details how NC State and Duke, who were at least consistent rivals over the years, are currently only scheduled to play each other once in the next 11 years because of the way the ACC schedule is. If they want to play each other I have no issue with it being a non-conference game. It doesn't effect how the championship path is decided other than possibly the rankings of the teams, it makes sense financially, and its good for what I see as the biggest casualty of the expanding conferences - that being RIVALRY.
If I was a student these days that was really into football, I would probably be pretty pissed off if you told me that oh by the way, in the entire 5 years that you are here, here are the three ACC schools we will never play and here are the five ACC schools you wont get a home game against.
There already is the new rule of 8+1 for the ACC, so all the schools are going to be forced to find a Top 5 Conference opponent every year. This makes it clear that playing another ACC school that you would otherwise not get to play satisfies that requirement. I would much rather play Florida State more often than scheduling Iowa or Kansas.
Nine game conference schedule.
Now with the Playoff being a factor in OOC scheduling, a ninth conference game is an automatic boost for everyone involved.
It's the only good solution if you want to keep divisional play (which I do).
All I know is that this would be the most #goacc action in a while. Or should I say, ACCtion.