(10-03-2013 12:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't know what all can be done to tweak the current divisions. If you take it to the most extreme case and try to go purely by "Old Big East" and "Old ACC", you will still run into people that will be pissed off. If you do something like:

Does that satisfy everyone? I'm guessing not...

The "best" option is to use a pod system. (credit to ohio1317 for introducing this idea to me). you have fours groups, 2 of 4 teams, 2 of three teams. The groups of 4 are always in opposite divisions, as are the groups of 3. The groups of 3 switch every other year so that the divisions aren't static. Every crossover game in a year is against the teams in the group you are never with for a division.

Pods
Coast____ Mid-Atlantic
Wake____ Pittsburgh
NC ST___ Syracuse
UNC_____ Virginia Tech
Duke_____ UVA

The below switch spots every year or two years, whichever works
West_____ East
Louisville__ Boston College
Ga Tech___ Clemson
Miami_____ Florida St

If playing with 8 conference games

• *Coast and Mid-Atlantic
  Play each team in your pod every year, and play the three teams assigned that year from the rotating pod. Play two teams cross division one year, then play the other two teams the next year.
  
  * East and West
  Play each team in your pod every year, and the four teams from the pod (coast/MidAtl) you play in rotation. Play two games cross division each year. Can either be play the three teams two out of every three years, or play one selected team every year and the other two teams every other year.

To use an example from each set of pods, in this scenario, North Carolina would play NC State, Duke, and Wake every year, and every other school in the conference every other year. Florida State, as a rotating team, would play Clemson, Boston College, and Miami every year, and every other school every other year, or Clemson and BC every year, Louisville, Miami, and Ga Tech two out of every three years, and every other school every other year.

If playing with 9 conference games

• *Coast and Mid-Atlantic
  Play each team in your pod every year, and play the three teams assigned that year from the rotating pod. Play three games cross division each year, playing either every team three out of every four years, or playing two pre-selected teams each year, and the other two teams every other year.
  
  * East and West
  Play each team in your pod every year, and the four teams from the pod (coast/MidAtl) you play in rotation Play all three cross division teams each year.

To use an example from each set of pods, in this scenario, North Carolina would play NC State, Duke, and Wake every year, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Pitt three out of every four years, and the other schools every other year. or North Carolina would play NC State, Duke, Wake, Virginia, and Virginia Tech every year, and every other school every other year. Florida State would play Clemson, Boston College, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Louisville every year, and every other school every other year.

To me, these options work the best. It was written up initially for a nine game conference schedule, so if made into an 8 game schedule, I'd probably switch Louisville and Boston College - with a 9 game schedule, the makeup of the east and west is irrelevant since all six will play each other every season, so I went for balance. with an 8 game schedule it does matter for rivalry reasons and I think Boston, Atlanta, and Miami seem to fit together better - but otherwise it preserves all rivalries, has everyone play everyone at least every other season, with the only casualty being that in an 8 game schedule, Virginia only gets to play UNC and Duke every other year as opposed to every season. But even then, they get NC State and Wake Forest back on the schedule every other year for that same time period, so that's a wash.

Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

(10-03-2013 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

1) This assumes that the ACC schools will ALWAYS be weak schools. While some schools will most likely never rise past mediocrity, there are enough schools in the conference that CAN make the next step to respectability and strength.

2) If the ACC is the only conference left at 8 games while the other conferences move to 9 games, the ACC will be left with the "one extra tomato can" game by default. I've seen this play out with the BE schedules when everyone was at 8 conf games while the 8 school BE only had 7 games.

If the SEC elects to stay at 8 conf games, then the ACC should be fine staying at 8 games too. If the SEC moves to 9, and the ACC is the only conf left at 8, then I forsee some scheduling issues down the road.

(10-03-2013 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

This is one of those cases where it's hard to have your cake (strong SOS) and eat it too (7 home games). The point of the extra conference game is more TV money. With the average TV value of each game at roughly $3.5-$4 million per (based on the number of games divided by the average contract value for football) the extra TV money should offset the lost 0.5 home game per season. The simple solution to this the years where the "extra" game looks to be a hamper to SOS (it's not like the rotations are not known in advance), you can schedule as though that team is a buy game, in terms of playing another "name" OOC. The law of averages says that half of each division is "strong" and the other half is not, so it's an issue every other year.

Actually crafty scheduling could be done to have the ND games mimick the years the teams need a boost in schedule per three year cycle.

(10-03-2013 01:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

1) This assumes that the ACC schools will ALWAYS be weak schools. While some schools will most likely never rise past mediocrity, there are enough schools in the conference that CAN make the next step to respectability and strength.

Can and will are two totally different animals. Sure there are programs that can make the next step, but after all these years I am seriously doubting that they will.

(10-03-2013 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

This is one of those cases where it's hard to have your cake (strong SOS) and eat it too (7 home games).

Not really. Just don't add a 9th conference game when you already know that except for one or two years out of the cycle it is going to hurt, and for teams like Clemson and FSU who already play one of the stronger teams from the other division every year it hurts SOS even more.

Quote:The point of the extra conference game is more TV money. With the average TV value of each game at roughly $3.5-$4 million per (based on the number of games divided by the average contract value for football) the extra TV money should offset the lost 0.5 home game per season.

If you can get the extra TV money. Remember we don't get to renegotiate our TV contract until 2027.

Quote:The simple solution to this the years where the "extra" game looks to be a hamper to SOS (it's not like the rotations are not known in advance), you can schedule as though that team is a buy game, in terms of playing another "name" OOC. The law of averages says that half of each division is "strong" and the other half is not, so it's an issue every other year.

Not possible for schools like Clemson because we will have only one free OOC game every year (and no free OOC games to play with the years we gets stuck with the freeloaders from South Bend) in a nine game conference slate. It's why we opposed the 9th game the last time the idiots in Greensboro forced it upon us and why we will oppose it in the future.

Quote:Actually crafty scheduling could be done to have the ND games mimick the years the teams need a boost in schedule per three year cycle.

That's assuming Notre Dame stays good enough to offset anything. With their track record that is highly in doubt.

(10-03-2013 01:07 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:15 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

Man you like to complain. You do realize the ninth conference game IS that extra game you seek?

No it isn't. Get educated and then people wouldn't have to correct you. Nothing to do with complaining. More to do with you not being informed.

If they go to 9 ACC games, it will take the opportunity of scheduling better OOC games away from FSU/Clemson.

You are not "educating me." You specifically complained that because FSU doesn't play enough of the teams in the other division, and that it hurts your SOS. This is a proposal that alleviates that... by having you play more of the teams you are complaining that you don't play. That is what I meant by it "IS that extra game you seek?"
Using the last five years as an example, FSU would be replacing games (the second big OOC game after UF) with Nevada, South Florida (3-9), Oklahoma (10-3), Oklahoma (12-2), BYU (11-2), Colorado (5-7), Alabama (7-6), Rice (7-6), and Syracuse (1-10, with games against Georgia Tech (2) Virginia Tech (2), North Carolina (2)Pittsburgh (2) Virginia, and Duke. I don't see any noticeable difference here in the quality of opponent. I see three 10 win teams you played over ten years, being replaced by probably three 10 win teams. Also I noticed one year you scheduled three teams with home and home (Alabama, Florida, and Colorado) and the last two years you avoided power teams, and seemingly were looking to soften the schedule. I just don't see your argument.


Unless of course you wan to change course and now say :"you didn't mean you wanted to play more teams in the other division." You made a complaint. The proposal attempts to alleviate said complaint. Then you say the proposal is hampering you. Essentially you are complaining just to complain.

Listen this time and read the posts.

Right now FSU has UF out of conference which rotates.

The next 2 opponens are home games.

That leaves one OOC team that can rotate and can be a power team.

If this schedule goes through, FSU either has to give up a home game or they exchange a marque opponent for what is many of times Pitt/Duke/UVA etc. That isn't worth it. IT isnt worth 2 extra GT games over 12 years to give up 8 years of a chance to schedule a 2nd marque game. And it isn't worth giving up more home games.

Now if the divisions were more to FSU's liking, MAYBE they could compromise. But if nothing else is going to change, FSU will continue to schedule up OOC and won't want 9 conference games. That is how it is.

It isn't complaining to complain. It is just you not getting it even when it is spelled out. Kaplony summed it up too. It hurts FSU/Clemson to add the 9th game. So you would have to give something to get something. Can't have it go your way on every issue.

The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

(10-01-2013 07:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 09:37 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 11:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In my view, the reason that the previous plan to go to 9 conference games was cancelled is that the addition of Notre Dame on a rotating basis was assumed to place too great of a burden on those schools with a permanent SEC rival, i.e. GT, CU, FSU, and now UL. Playing 9 conference games, an SEC rival and ND would make it impossible to play 7 home games in years that these schools played at Notre Dame (once every 6 years). Some resolution of this problem will need to be reached to move to a 9 game conference schedule.

An alternative to the 9 game conference schedule would be developing some kind of a scheduling alliance. There was talk at one point of developing such an alliance with the SEC. That doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. One possibility would be an alliance with BYU. For instance, if the ACC agreed to play 6 games per year against BYU (3 home and 3 away), in combination with the Notre Dame contracts and SEC rivalries, there would only be a need for each ACC member to find one other P5 opponent annually to maintain scheduling parity with those conferences playing 9 conference games.

Yeah but does BYU really deserve the consideration that Notre Dame does? I don't think so.

We want ND to join some day. Not the case with BYU.

I'm not advocating for this, and certainly not advocating that BYU get the same deal that ND got (i.e., bowl tie ins, basketball membership). I am pointing out that a scheduling alliance is one strategy for creating the equivalent of a 9th conference game without actually doing so, and pointing out that BYU would be a logical candidate if such an approach were on the table.

I actually favor going to 9 conference games but recognize the legitimate concerns that this may raise for Clemson and others. A scheduling alliance with BYU would be a workable alternative if these concerns could not be addressed adequately to reach resolution.

I'm not sure what the advantage of creating a scheduling agreement with BYU would be.

*BYU isn't great for recruiting
*BYU gets OK ratings but nothing special
*BYU is pretty good, but not anything that almost every ACC team doesn't already have on their schedule pretty much every year. SU had NW and PSU on our schedule this year. What's the advantage of trading one of those teams for BYU?

I can see ND because ND is something special and thus better than the alternative for most ACC teams, but that isn't true for BYU. So far we've played UF, USCarolina, UGA, PSU, NW, Oregon, USCalifornia, WVU, and *BYU* (which is a wash game). I don't see those games as being tangibly worse than BYU and I don't think this is an abnormal year for the conference.

(10-03-2013 12:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  North
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami

South
Florida St
Clemson
Ga. Tech
NC State
North Carolina
Duke
Wake

to this! I like it. Of course I am satisfied with what I have coming anyway.

But... No permanent crossover rival game.

(10-03-2013 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Clemson wants to play for national titles, and a big art of that is strength of schedule. In the future strength of schedule is going to play a bigger part of that. As last year showed, and this year is showing http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html playing an extra ACC game is going to hurt the strength of schedule.

This is one of those cases where it's hard to have your cake (strong SOS) and eat it too (7 home games).

Not really. Just don't add a 9th conference game when you already know that except for one or two years out of the cycle it is going to hurt, and for teams like Clemson and FSU who already play one of the stronger teams from the other division every year it hurts SOS even more.

Last year, Clemson would have benefited from an extra cross division game. Its SOS was crushed by the fact that three teams within its division were awful. Wake was rated 81st by RealtimeRPI, Maryland 103rd, and BC 115th. The three schools Clemson didn't play were much better - UNC 41st, Miami 51st, and UVA 89th. Newcomers SU and Pitt were 49th and 68th respectively. Playing ANY of these other than UVA would have been better than playing Auburn (87th), which they did play (and UVA would have been a wash).

Clemson could also improve its SOS by eliminating FCS games from its schedule and bringing in a CUSA or SBC opponent instead.

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there, and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

(10-03-2013 03:10 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Listen this time and read the posts.

Right now FSU has UF out of conference which rotates.

The next 2 opponens are home games.

That leaves one OOC team that can rotate and can be a power team.

I read it. And I am sure taking South Florida and Nevada off your schedule to replace with North Carolina and Virginia tech will really hurt your SOS. What I pointed out to you, which you COMPKETELY ignored, was I listed every "second" OOC game FSU has played the last ten years, and showed that replacing those teams with the extra Conference game would at worse break even schedule wise, and often would have improved it.

Of course while you were buys "educating me, you ignored all of that. FSU has played a "second" major OOC opponent 3 times in the last ten years that ended up as marquee. One was a non-BCS team that had a good year. Based on the extra games cross division, that number likely would have been the same. But again you ignored that, which is the very basis of BOTH sides of the argument.

(10-03-2013 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This is one of those cases where it's hard to have your cake (strong SOS) and eat it too (7 home games).

Not really. Just don't add a 9th conference game when you already know that except for one or two years out of the cycle it is going to hurt, and for teams like Clemson and FSU who already play one of the stronger teams from the other division every year it hurts SOS even more.

You missed the point. It only "hurts" your SOS if you replace the extra OOC game with a buy game. Hence my argument of losing a home game. If the extra conference game replaces a "buy-game" then you are improving your SOS. That was why I said wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For example USC often only has six home games, since they have been playing nine conference games for a few years, don't play FCS schools, and have had a few years where all OOC games were part of home and homes. Sane with UCLA and Stanford. For the most part, they make the same amount of money, because since the games improved, they were able to charge roughly the same price for the high revenue seats (seat license, suite rental, etc), and while they do lose some general admission ticket revenue, the lack of paying guarantees tends to make up for it. Plus it gives them much stronger SOS's than their conference partners.

Also, without requiting, we are not due a new TV contract for a while, but adding an extra conference game would generally be done for the purposes of TV, either to renegotiate the contract, or improve the value of a future network. That was what I meant. They would not add conference games for no reason, and one point for that would likely to be to get more revenue for TV. Not guaranteed of course, but that would almost surely be the reason.

Let me catch you up on the details since you are new around here.

Clemson plays South Carolina every year, odd years on the road, even years at home.

Clemson and South Carolina play an in-state FCS school every year at the "suggestion" of the SC General Assembly. Until the NCAA itself changes the rules this isn't going to change. Even if the ACC and SEC ban FCS games we both will still play them. It has been a positive for the FCS programs in this state and with six of them in such a small state they can wield significant political influence.

Clemson athletics is essentially self-funding. I say essentially because we do receive a small stipend from the University from student fees but between the fees we pay the University and the amount of money we kick back into the general scholarship fund we end up paying more back than what they give us. As the Clemson financial officer told a group of rabble-rousing faculty last year "We eat what we kill", and football is the major hunter in the athletic department. Because football funds the majority of the athletic department seven home games is not just a luxury, it is essential. Even the neutral site games do not equal the revenue we bring in from a home game against even the least desirable opponent. The year we play Alabama in the kickoff classic we declined several different times because we already had a road OOC game that year (vs La Tech in Shreveport) and it would mean only six home games. It was only after they significantly upped the payout to where the AD felt the money loss was more than made up by the exposure from a high profile opponent and time slot that we agreed to play. But make no mistake we would have lost money that year had La Tech not bought out of the 2/1 series and we were able to get an additional home game. With a nine game ACC schedule one year we have five road games already built in, meaning we can't play an OOC road game and have seven home games. In the year we have four ACC road games we have South Carolina on the road for five road games again. When exactly do you propose we set up a home and home when there are only seven home games built in the schedule every year?

We kept the UGA series when the ACC tried this junk the last time simply because the AD was bombarded with phone calls, emails, tweets, etc. demanding it be kept. When we made schedule adjustments the only home and home that was kept was UGA, we dropped Oklahoma State and Ole Miss.

I said earlier a 9th conference game should be added only with north/south divisions. I would say keep 8 conference games if we ever move to 4 conferences of 16 and expand playoffs to eight. Then you can give each of the conference champs an autobid. This way, teams could play tough OOC games and not worry about losing because winning the conference is the biggest prize. Also, it would make every conference game very important. I hope that if there is a split of big schools that the auto bid is what we go to.

Are we overestimating strength of schedule? Shouldn't we assume that most of the new committee will use the "eye" test to determine the worthy 4?

As an example, if Louisville were still in the AAC next year and beat everyone by 50 points would the committee have them in the top 4. I would guess the answer is yes.

(10-04-2013 10:54 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

Yes, but the rules don't affect all the teams the same way. For starters, 3 9/14ths OOC games as opposed to 2 9/14ths OOC games is a MUCH bigger benefit to FSU than it is to Wake. Read Kaplony's post above if you don't think that extra OOC games aren't a big deal to big programs, and FSU is the biggest program in the conference.

Anyway, there are also other factors, but I really don't want to get into this with you beyond that.

(10-04-2013 08:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 10:54 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

Yes, but the rules don't affect all the teams the same way. For starters, 3 9/14ths OOC games as opposed to 2 9/14ths OOC games is a MUCH bigger benefit to FSU than it is to Wake. Read Kaplony's post above if you don't think that extra OOC games aren't a big deal to big programs, and FSU is the biggest program in the conference.

Anyway, there are also other factors, but I really don't want to get into this with you beyond that.

There really aren't other factors. In fact a school like Syracuse has an easier time scheduling up because the marque teams don't really fear them. FSU has been trying in recent years to get another SEC team scheduled for a 2nd marque game, but these teams are avoiding them like the plague. Georgia is the latest that wouldn't even give FSU a 1 year neutral site game in fricken Atlanta.....

The bottom line is the 9th game shouldn't happen unless FSU/Clemson get something in return. They already got stuck in a terrible division in this conference so taking away an extra home game or marque game to schedule OOC is a non starter.

(10-05-2013 08:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  The bottom line is the 9th game shouldn't happen unless FSU/Clemson get something in return. They already got stuck in a terrible division in this conference so taking away an extra home game or marque game to schedule OOC is a non starter.

Though historically this is true, the Atlantic is trending upwards. I believe the expansion and new coaches (other schools) will work out well for both FSU and Clem. Next year Louisville comes in and we know they are serious about football. I think BC, Syr, and NCSU will all be competitive. The cupcake in the division is going to be Wake. I have a feeling they are going to regress back to their old ways. Honestly, the Atlantic might be better than the Coastal very soon.