(02-11-2014 07:24 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 03:25 PM)E2THEX Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...land-soon-


Well, it might be soon -- as the only power conference without plans for a nine-game conference schedule.

The ACC is discussing nine games again. No votes were taken at league meetings last week and the ACC is still exploring all options, including a potential “8 + 1” partnership with the SEC.

But more than half the conference athletic directors want nine games, according to an ACC source, which means those talks will deepen the intrigue as the College Football Playoff era begins in earnest in the fall and leagues jockey for position in the national semifinal. If the SEC feels it can eschew nine games based on its body of work on the football field and its ability to schedule good non-conference games, that conviction will be tested more than ever if it's on an eight-game island.

That can't be true. We have been told by message board fans that the 9 game schedule is SU AD Darryl Gross' sole idea, implying no one else is truly interested in it.

Anyway, my stance remains that the ACC should be the last conference to go to the 9 game schedule, but if it chooses to do so, I won't really care.

Cheers,
Neil

Yes but according to Catdaddy; Gross has severe mental deficiencies despite his PhDs.

I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

Louisville is not like those schools...they actually garner a ton of $$$ from hoops.

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

Daryl Gross did not shoot his mouth off in public. He sent an email that was released via an access to information request.
Of course this may have also been a plan to launch a trial balloon to see what the reaction would be to scheduling changes.

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

Guys, don't worry about Lumberpack. He has been corrected before, several times, about Gross sending an email to his fellow AD's. First Lumber was saying that Gross spoke out of turn, and that "email is not the way to approach this subject." Now he is saying that "he shot his mouth off publicly." He well knows that is not the case.

Reading some of his posts, I can tell that he's a little smarter than that, which leads me to believe that he is just trying to stir up stuff.

KMEOY.

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

I have no reason to think that either UVA or UNC are scheming to injure Va Tech or NC State. However, I do think that many schools act in such as way as to promote their own self-interest even at the expense of the rest of the conference. Hopefully forward-thinking heads will prevail.

(02-13-2014 08:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

I have no reason to think that either UVA or UNC are scheming to injure Va Tech or NC State. However, I do think that many schools act in such as way as to promote their own self-interest even at the expense of the rest of the conference. Hopefully forward-thinking heads will prevail.

That goes both ways. The schools that want 9 games want it because it's better for THEM.

You CANNOT do something that may hurt your top schools in football/basketball/any sport, even if it may benefit the majority of schools in the conference. It makes no sense. Especially when there are better options. Instead of 9 games, do the division-less, 8-game/3 or 4 rivals idea. In that same vein, the ACCT should never go to NYC permanently (can't rightly be hypocritical here). But since it's not permanently in NC and hasn't been for quite some time, I still think it could be in NYC as often as it is in NC, and I can want it moved out of Greensboro to Charlotte whenever it's played in NC. (Nobody cares about Greensboro.)

Also in regards to 9 games. You can't ask some of these schools to give up flexibility and autonomy for potentially no, or only a marginal, revenue increase.

Basically, if you "give in", it must satisfy two things, and only these two things, but it must satisfy them concurrently. 1) The top schools in a sport should supersede the "good of the conference" if the "good of the conference" may actually be detrimental to the top schools. 2) You shouldn't make any changes if there's not a significant increase in revenue, especially if you're forcing schools to "give up" something in return.

(02-13-2014 12:09 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

Daryl Gross did not shoot his mouth off in public. He sent an email that was released via an access to information request.
Of course this may have also been a plan to launch a trial balloon to see what the reaction would be to scheduling changes.

When you send emails to public universities instead of using the phone, you are shooting your mouth off in public. Gross needed to understand that such things don't go on paper until it's been fleshed out verbally. You have to consider everything you put in an email to be public. Next time he will call his peers, not email them.

(02-13-2014 08:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

I have no reason to think that either UVA or UNC are scheming to injure Va Tech or NC State. However, I do think that many schools act in such as way as to promote their own self-interest even at the expense of the rest of the conference. Hopefully forward-thinking heads will prevail.

UVA and UNC have a self interest in not helping VT and NC State. It's just human nature.

(02-12-2014 10:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

Louisville is not like those schools...they actually garner a ton of $$$ from hoops.

Louisville has a full house in football, even for dud games. So they are not in need of the 9th league game. Yes they make money on basketball and so does NC State, in fact both are very similar. NC State can sell all it's football tickets for crap state University, so can Louisville. I didn't mean to imply that having good basketball was the football policy crux, it's about what you use to gin up donations and can you fill your seats. If you fill your seats, losing the 7th game hurts. If you don't sell out in football, trading a 7th game for one half of an ACC game is not a bad deal.

Of late, UVa, and UNC have been leaving about 7,500 to 10,000 seats unsold and it's basketball that gins up their other donations. That's what I meant.

(02-13-2014 12:15 AM)texasorange Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

(02-13-2014 07:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 12:15 AM)texasorange Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

This seems to be your problem since you know this is no longer true as it once was and becomes less and less true as time goes on and new schools come in.

(02-13-2014 09:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 07:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 12:15 AM)texasorange Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

This seems to be your problem since you know this is no longer true as it once was and becomes less and less true as time goes on and new schools come in.

Don't hold your breath on that. Syracuse is not going to be running anything in the ACC for a long time.

(02-13-2014 09:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 07:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 12:15 AM)texasorange Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I don't think FSU, Clemson, GT, Louisville, NC State, or VT would have been in favor of the idea. It's an idea that fundamentally does not appeal to those with the larger football stadiums and those dependent on a 7th home game every year. If you have a smaller football stadium or you can't fill your stadium, or your revenue is tied more to basketball you would tend to be in favor of such so I suspect Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake would be in favor. I doubt UVa or UNC fundamentally care, but I can see them siding with the small stadium, small crowd schools on this since it would tend to hurt VT and NC State.

The problem with Gross is that he shot his mouth off in public regarding a league matter - a big no-no in the ACC.

No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

This seems to be your problem since you know this is no longer true as it once was and becomes less and less true as time goes on and new schools come in.

Don't hold your breath on that. Syracuse is not going to be running anything in the ACC for a long time.

Reading and comprehension . Never said anything about Syracuse. But the "old core" as you call it sees its "control" being eroded little by little. And that's what makes you and others so insecure. 11-4

(02-13-2014 07:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Louisville is not like those schools...they actually garner a ton of $$$ from hoops.

Louisville has a full house in football, even for dud games. So they are not in need of the 9th league game. Yes they make money on basketball and so does NC State, in fact both are very similar. NC State can sell all it's football tickets for crap state University, so can Louisville.

What he means is Louisville's basketball program is a football program itself monetarily. Louisville basketball generated $42.5 million in revenue in 2012 and ranked 20th in total revenue as a sport and first in the ACC. As in ahead of all but 19 football teams in revenue and all ACC football programs (for reference Clemson Football made $39.5 million the same year). The 2013 number places Louisville basketball 17th on the football list, but I don't have all of the numbers. So while Louisville tends to vote and think as a football school because basketball will make money one way or another, when you say a decision tends to favor those who most of their revenue from basketball, you probably would have to consider such a move something Louisville would pay attention to, as that IS their bread and butter.

(02-13-2014 10:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 07:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 12:15 AM)texasorange Wrote:  No offense but the ACC has changed. There are so many teams now that were in the Big East, it's not really the ACC conference of old. Plus to say he "Shot off his mouth"? Really ? I have lived in Texas for over 20 years; we don't hold back here either. If you have something to say than damn well say it. And since I cover most of the country it's really not much different anywhere I go.

If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

This seems to be your problem since you know this is no longer true as it once was and becomes less and less true as time goes on and new schools come in.

Don't hold your breath on that. Syracuse is not going to be running anything in the ACC for a long time.

Reading and comprehension . Never said anything about Syracuse. But the "old core" as you call it sees its "control" being eroded little by little. And that's what makes you and others so insecure. 11-4

BC has learned to reign in public statements about the conference's business. Miami has never made such statements. Pitt has not stuck it's foot into it's mouth. That just leaves Syracuse. The ACC is never going to be a conference where someone will be able to float something in public first before shopping it in quiet. Perhaps this is one of the reason the Big East had so many problem.

Let's see how long it is before Syracuse says something in public or allows something to reach the public before it's vetted and massaged.

You will be Southernized - not as much as if you joined the SEC, but you will be absorbed and reshaped in the Southern and Eastern style of doing business.

We have a POD prepared for you and it's waiting for you in Greensboro.

(02-13-2014 11:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 07:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you don't hold back until you test which way the wind is blowing in the ACC you will get blown over. This is not Texas or New York, brash bluntness is not appreciated or rewarded. You have to do behind the scenes work first - sorry it's a cultural thing and the culture continues to be controlled by the old core.

This seems to be your problem since you know this is no longer true as it once was and becomes less and less true as time goes on and new schools come in.

Don't hold your breath on that. Syracuse is not going to be running anything in the ACC for a long time.

Reading and comprehension . Never said anything about Syracuse. But the "old core" as you call it sees its "control" being eroded little by little. And that's what makes you and others so insecure. 11-4

BC has learned to reign in public statements about the conference's business. Miami has never made such statements. Pitt has not stuck it's foot into it's mouth. That just leaves Syracuse. The ACC is never going to be a conference where someone will be able to float something in public first before shopping it in quiet. Perhaps this is one of the reason the Big East had so many problem.

Let's see how long it is before Syracuse says something in public or allows something to reach the public before it's vetted and massaged.

You will be Southernized - not as much as if you joined the SEC, but you will be absorbed and reshaped in the Southern and Eastern style of doing business.

We have a POD prepared for you and it's waiting for you in Greensboro.

This is not a northern vs. southern cultural issue at all. If anything, it's a byproduct of BE thinking since the Dave Gavitt era of BE basketball. While Syracuse has a rich FB tradition that many programs can respect, it's mindset has generally been more in tune with the Catholic BB schools of the northeast. As such, that mode of operating is the culture Syracuse has about itself. Pitt has associated itself with football for a much longer time period, and on top of that was never a BE insider in the same way that Syracuse, BC and UCONN were back in the 80s into the 90s.

So while schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Miami, Rutgers, Temple and PSU were football indies for most of their history, not all of those schools act the same way. Those that associated with FB first tended to act differently than those schools that aligned more naturally with BB as the prime sport. The reason BC and Miami were more quiet was because they associate with FB first. From what I can see, those who associate with FB first tend to think more cooperatively than those who think as BB schools first. Because of the differences between the sports, that's what you are seeing from the newest members with VT, BC and Miami included.

JMHO, no offense intended towards Syracuse.

VT is not new to the ACC. You think they are new because you are only looking at the last couple of decade. They are not "new", they are old. We also know that it's a Yankee's tendency to say what's on their mind, to be blunt. Personally I like that trait instead of all the southern hem-hawing, pleasantries, etc., etc. But when it comes to business in the South, you surface ideas carefully, obtain a couple of folks that agree, and then raise it in private. The ACC operates like a Country Club, not a NY Board Room. You will see Notre Dame and Louisville fall right into line with that method of operation.

You can say anything in private here, but not in public. It's hypocritical but that's how this area rolls - we paper over our differences. Syracuse made the mistake of using public email, when a phone call or a meeting at the airport would have worked. He knows better for the future.

There is an airport in Greensboro - Piedmont Triad. He needs to get to know it, as well as the airport in Greenville, SC. Buffalo might work well for Syracuse, Pitt, and ND.

Not sure if the North Vs. South analogy is apt. Dr. Gross is a California guy. Grew up in LA, played football at UC Davis, earned his Ph.D, coached and was Asst. AD at USC ( credited with hiring Pete Carroll while there).