http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

All you do is complain. Every single post. What an effort you put into your misery. Are you sure you're not a State fan?

(02-08-2014 11:29 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

All you do is complain. Every single post. What an effort you put into your misery. Are you sure you're not a State fan?

When this conference does something to be applauded for then maybe that will change. As it stands there is no indication that is happening any time soon.

9 games is ridiculous. Conference games should be even. It doesn't help.

Could they count ND as a conf game?
So you play 2 yrs 9 acc, 1 yr 8acc +ND?

or opt out of an ND cycle

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

want some more cheese with that wine? Wanting 9 conference games is not just about getting more games in Atlanta and Miami its about playing the 6 other teams in the division more than 1 every 6 years so that it actually feels like 1 conference instead of 2. No matter what ESPN says publically I'm sure they probably want 9 conference games in part the acc network and the other part is that all other power 5 conferences are likely going/at to 9 conference games in the future which will mean less OOC quality matchups since schools will schedule 1 major P5 school,1 G5 school and 1 local fbs team or a second G5 school. If Clemson was carrying the conference they would actually win there in state rivalry game and not get curb stomped by a bad west Virginia team in the orange bowl. You have done better the last couple years in marquis bowl games but 1 or 2 wins isn't carrying a conference. And before you say what about Syracuse I will admit we were down for a number of years especially in the Greg Robinson regime as coach but we are on the upswing and are building back up to be able to compete for championships in the next few years.

All this talk is mute though if we get ncaa to pass our legislation so they can have no divisions

The proposed nine game schedule has many reasons. The B1G played 9 games for decades and it didn't affect their chances at NCs.

There are suggestions that a 13 game season is desired, thus a 9 game conference schedule is not harmful in any way.

The 9 game proposal may be a means of forcing schools to break their holds on thing (think about breaking up the Carolina four and getting them to think more in line with football schools.)

There may be more. Let things play out and see where we land.

Not all change is bad.

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

Dr. Gross has spoken out if favor of wanting to play more urban schools, but there are multiple ways to do that (i.e. division realignment). However, to the best of my knowledge, he has never specifically advocated a 9 game schedule. That's Pitt's AD. None the less, I favor a 9 game schedule, but that's a different discussion.

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

Ya this would be a disaster for Clemson. They won't get to play both S.Carolina St. and Citadel, they will only get to play one. I'm sure if it was up to you, you would go down to 7 conference games so you can add VMI to the schedule.

(02-09-2014 09:42 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The proposed nine game schedule has many reasons. The B1G played 9 games for decades and it didn't affect their chances at NCs.

There are suggestions that a 13 game season is desired, thus a 9 game conference schedule is not harmful in any way.

The 9 game proposal may be a means of forcing schools to break their holds on thing (think about breaking up the Carolina four and getting them to think more in line with football schools.)

There may be more. Let things play out and see where we land.

Not all change is bad.

1984 was the only time before 2016 that the Big Ten had a 9 game schedule.

(02-09-2014 07:41 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Could they count ND as a conf game?
So you play 2 yrs 9 acc, 1 yr 8acc +ND?

One problem with this is that ND plays 5 ACC opponents. This has to be done for an even number of opponents to maintain 9 conference games for everyone. One of the five opponents would need to have ND as an OOC game.

I didn't realize Syracuse had so much influence as a new member of the ACC that we could impose our will on the other thirteen schools. If it's such a horrible idea it would be shot down immediately. No idea is so dangerous you shouldn't even discuss it .

(02-09-2014 09:52 AM)Star City Hokie Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 11:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 10:27 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...15978.post

It's likely that they would wait for the NCAA to rule on their request to choose their champion how they saw fit before deciding something on divisions anyway. ESPN is probably requiring 9 games before investing in an ACC channel.

Except for the fact ESPN isn't behind it.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

So let's put that urban myth to rest.

Syracuse is behind it because their AD wants more games in Miami and Atlanta. Nevermind the fact that there are three schools he can play OOC and get games in both places. Nah, let's screw over the schools actually carrying the conference in football.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the 9th game is coming primarily because it would be a disaster for the football schools and the next time this conference does something to support the football schools it will be the first time.

Ya this would be a disaster for Clemson. They won't get to play both S.Carolina St. and Citadel, they will only get to play one. I'm sure if it was up to you, you would go down to 7 conference games so you can add VMI to the schedule.

We played SC State and The Citadel last year because when the ACC went to 9 games a few years back we dropped games and SC State was the only team we could find to fill the slot in 2013 when they went back to 8 games.

Of course you fail to mention the fact that unlike VT Clemson has had 2 BCS OOC games a year since 2010 and has two in both 2014 and 2015. You also fail to mention that also unlike VT Clemson wins their games against their FCS opponents.

ACC should not go to 9 conference games unless the SEC does. If the NCAA allows the leagues to schedule games regardless of division, then the ACC doesn't need 9 games. They can schedule home and homes or neutral site games for extra $$$$

(02-09-2014 02:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ACC should not go to 9 conference games unless the SEC does. If the NCAA allows the leagues to schedule games regardless of division, then the ACC doesn't need 9 games. They can schedule home and homes or neutral site games for extra $$$$

This. The ACC should be the last of the P5 to go to a 9 game schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-09-2014 03:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 02:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ACC should not go to 9 conference games unless the SEC does. If the NCAA allows the leagues to schedule games regardless of division, then the ACC doesn't need 9 games. They can schedule home and homes or neutral site games for extra $$$$

This. The ACC should be the last of the P5 to go to a 9 game schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

I would have no problem with the ACC staying at 8 conf games provided the SEC does the same. Add to that the possibility of the SEC and ACC doing some type of scheduling alliance to keep away from a 9th game, and I am good with it. However, if the SEC goes to 9 games along with everyone else, then I think the writing will be on the wall and the ACC will need to go to 9 conf games too.

There are only three reasons to go to 9 games in my opinion.

#1. Playing nine conference games is a set-in-stone requirement to launch an ACC network.

#2. Adding a ninth game adds significantly more net revenue per team for the conference.

#3. Every other P5 conference plays 9 games and one of the following is true:
.......the ACC is penalized by the selection committee for only playing 8 conference games
.......the ACC can't schedule enough quality OOC match-ups because other conferences are all playing 9 conference games.