Another point of discussion at the three-day meetings will be the issue of football teams playing one more conference game per season. Schools play eight.
Pederson said eight make the most sense to him, an opinion he said he shares with many ACC officials.
“We voted for nine prior to Notre Dame (cycling through every school's schedule),” he said. “But (officials) said, ‘Hold on a second. That's not reasonable scheduling.' ”
Pederson said there doesn't appear to be much support for banning FCS schools from ACC schedules.
“There are a lot of good FCS schools that are willing to play you, and sometimes it's hard to find the other people who are willing to play you (without demanding a home game in return),” he said. “Especially if you are trying to keep seven home games.”


Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/...z317CcgLOr
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Ah, sometimes reason DOES prevail!

Glad he finally came to the right conclusion about 8 games although I'm disappointed they aren't even talking with WVU about restarting the series.

(05-08-2014 05:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ah, sometimes reason DOES prevail!

Now if only all the non-Syracuse AD's would see the light and vote to choose division champions based on the number of games that a school plays in the state of NY (as opposed to silly outcomes)....

(05-08-2014 07:46 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Glad he finally came to the right conclusion about 8 games although I'm disappointed they aren't even talking with WVU about restarting the series.

I know you guys miss WV. So do us Syracuse fans, and our rivalry was nowhere near as big. But WV left the BE on bad terms. Not that they left the BE, but the way they left the BE. I dont think the Admins for these schools are in a hurry to play WV. Really, WV needs Pitt a lot more than Pitt needs them. Same for Syracuse. Right now, you cant tell if it will be a SOS killer or not to play WV.

(05-08-2014 07:46 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Glad he finally came to the right conclusion about 8 games although I'm disappointed they aren't even talking with WVU about restarting the series.

At least you have the Penn State series 2016-19.

Conference schedules

As conference commissioners and athletic directors continually look for the ideal formats and structures of their relatively-new and redesigned leagues, several common topics usually emerge:

Expanding the conference schedule from eight games to nine and eliminating divisions.

Those topics will be discussed at the ACC's league meetings next week, and while the conference was set to go with a nine-game schedule prior to the addition of Notre Dame as a part-time member who will rotate through the schedules of the ACC teams, Pederson said that he thinks the status quo - two seven-team divisions and an eight-game conference schedule - will stay in place.

"Generally, I think the league has been in the mindset of playing eight games in two divisions, and that's really where I am right now: I like the divisions, I like the idea of playing eight games," Pederson said. "I've been in favor of playing nine games, but with the Notre Dame games being rotated in fairly regularly, the problem you get into with nine games is, if your tenth game is Penn State and your eleventh game is Notre Dame, nobody in the country is going to play a schedule like that. With eight games that's different than when you're playing nine games."


Crossovers

One issue with the ACC scheduling model relates to the considerable gaps that develop in how frequently opponents will face each other. For example, Pitt will meet each of its Coastal Division opponents every year on a rotating home-and-home basis; the other two games in the conference schedule will be filled annually by Syracuse and one other Atlantic Division opponent.

That means that, after hosting Florida State in Pitt's inaugural ACC game, the Panthers won't see the Seminoles again until 2020, and no date is set for the next time FSU could return to Heinz Field. The same goes for Clemson, N.C. State, Louisville, Wake Forest and Boston College: Pitt will face each of those teams just twice from last season until 2024.

Pederson said that those considerable gaps were the "genesis" of the nine-game schedule discussion, but once again he pointed to the limits on non-conference scheduling that could be created by an expanded schedule.

"We play a lot of national games, and I don't think you don't want your conference to become so conference-centric that you don't play outside the conference more than once a year or something like that. I think that would hurt us long-term."

The other alternative would be to eliminate the permanent crossover opponent. For Pitt, that would mean rotating all seven Atlantic Division teams two at a time. The issue there is that some ACC programs place considerable value on their crossover opponent.

"You could play more people if you didn't have a permanent rotating opponent, but then you're going to have some people who say, 'I want this permanent opponent'…I think at the end of the day we just have to do what's best for everybody, and that's going to take some talking-through."

With varying opinions on the matter, discussions at next week's ACC meetings should be interesting. No matter the differences of opinion, Pederson likes how the conference resolves issues.

"One of the things I've been impressed with and appreciative of is that everybody ends up being focused on what's being best for the league overall, and I think in every decision we come back to what's best for the league overall. That doesn't mean that everybody gets exactly what they want, and the bigger the league gets, when you've got 14 football and 15 total, the chances of having unanimous votes on things probably get reduced significantly."


Divisions


Pete Madia

Steve Pederson thinks the 8-game/2-division format is good for the ACC.


One other topic to be discussed is the possibility of eliminating the ACC's current two-division format in which the winners of each division meet in the conference championship game. The alternative would be a single 14-team conference that placed its top two finishers in the title game.

For example, last year Duke and Florida State met in the ACC championship game (FSU won 45-7). Duke made the game as the winner of the Coastal Division, although the Blue Devils' 6-2 conference record would have put them behind Clemson, who finished 7-1.

Similarly, in 2012's conference title game, Florida State beat Coastal Division "champion" Georgia Tech (who made the game because North Carolina and Miami were ineligible for the postseason). The Yellow Jackets were 5-3 in the ACC that year, while Clemson again posted a 7-1 mark but had the misfortune of playing in the same division as Florida State.

Regardless, Pederson thinks the current format has value.

"I still like the idea that you win your division and go to the championship game. I think there are some neat things about that, so that's why I've been a proponent of staying in the divisions like we have."

And the two-division structure doesn't always skew the matchups. From 2005-11, the division winners were also the two teams with the best records in the conference.


Keeping FCS games

Another popular talking point in the national discussion of college football scheduling has been the elimination of FBS schools scheduling games with FCS schools. The so-called "rent-a-wins" - although they don't always work out that way - allow the FBS school to schedule an extra home game with no expectation of a return visit.

If the goal is to consistently schedule seven home games every year, then finding an opponent that doesn't require a home-and-home series becomes essential, Pederson said. And since there aren't many FBS programs that will be willing to regularly travel for a one-game series - like New Mexico did last year while Pitt and the Lobos were in desperate circumstances - Pederson said that the FCS games are almost a necessity.

"We had the discussion about it, and then I think the reality came that sometimes you might not have any choice (in order to) keep the pool big enough to find games."

Pederson added that he doesn't think any significant change is coming along those lines in college football.

"I didn't get the sense that very many people had any sentiment toward eliminating [FCS games]. If you don't want to schedule FCS schools at your institution, don't do it."

If they keep the same divisions, they are complete idiots.

(05-08-2014 07:57 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:46 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Glad he finally came to the right conclusion about 8 games although I'm disappointed they aren't even talking with WVU about restarting the series.

I know you guys miss WV. So do us Syracuse fans, and our rivalry was nowhere near as big. But WV left the BE on bad terms. Not that they left the BE, but the way they left the BE. I dont think the Admins for these schools are in a hurry to play WV. Really, WV needs Pitt a lot more than Pitt needs them. Same for Syracuse. Right now, you cant tell if it will be a SOS killer or not to play WV.

Oliver Luck is a moron.

(05-08-2014 08:30 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Conference schedules


As conference commissioners and athletic directors continually look for the ideal formats and structures of their relatively-new and redesigned leagues, several common topics usually emerge:

Expanding the conference schedule from eight games to nine and eliminating divisions.

Those topics will be discussed at the ACC's league meetings next week, and while the conference was set to go with a nine-game schedule prior to the addition of Notre Dame as a part-time member who will rotate through the schedules of the ACC teams, Pederson said that he thinks the status quo - two seven-team divisions and an eight-game conference schedule - will stay in place.

"Generally, I think the league has been in the mindset of playing eight games in two divisions, and that's really where I am right now: I like the divisions, I like the idea of playing eight games," Pederson said. "I've been in favor of playing nine games, but with the Notre Dame games being rotated in fairly regularly, the problem you get into with nine games is, if your tenth game is Penn State and your eleventh game is Notre Dame, nobody in the country is going to play a schedule like that. With eight games that's different than when you're playing nine games."


Crossovers

One issue with the ACC scheduling model relates to the considerable gaps that develop in how frequently opponents will face each other. For example, Pitt will meet each of its Coastal Division opponents every year on a rotating home-and-home basis; the other two games in the conference schedule will be filled annually by Syracuse and one other Atlantic Division opponent.

That means that, after hosting Florida State in Pitt's inaugural ACC game, the Panthers won't see the Seminoles again until 2020, and no date is set for the next time FSU could return to Heinz Field. The same goes for Clemson, N.C. State, Louisville, Wake Forest and Boston College: Pitt will face each of those teams just twice from last season until 2024.

Pederson said that those considerable gaps were the "genesis" of the nine-game schedule discussion, but once again he pointed to the limits on non-conference scheduling that could be created by an expanded schedule.

"We play a lot of national games, and I don't think you don't want your conference to become so conference-centric that you don't play outside the conference more than once a year or something like that. I think that would hurt us long-term."

The other alternative would be to eliminate the permanent crossover opponent. For Pitt, that would mean rotating all seven Atlantic Division teams two at a time. The issue there is that some ACC programs place considerable value on their crossover opponent.

"You could play more people if you didn't have a permanent rotating opponent, but then you're going to have some people who say, 'I want this permanent opponent'…I think at the end of the day we just have to do what's best for everybody, and that's going to take some talking-through."

With varying opinions on the matter, discussions at next week's ACC meetings should be interesting. No matter the differences of opinion, Pederson likes how the conference resolves issues.

"One of the things I've been impressed with and appreciative of is that everybody ends up being focused on what's being best for the league overall, and I think in every decision we come back to what's best for the league overall. That doesn't mean that everybody gets exactly what they want, and the bigger the league gets, when you've got 14 football and 15 total, the chances of having unanimous votes on things probably get reduced significantly."


Divisions


Pete Madia

Steve Pederson thinks the 8-game/2-division format is good for the ACC.


One other topic to be discussed is the possibility of eliminating the ACC's current two-division format in which the winners of each division meet in the conference championship game. The alternative would be a single 14-team conference that placed its top two finishers in the title game.

For example, last year Duke and Florida State met in the ACC championship game (FSU won 45-7). Duke made the game as the winner of the Coastal Division, although the Blue Devils' 6-2 conference record would have put them behind Clemson, who finished 7-1.

Similarly, in 2012's conference title game, Florida State beat Coastal Division "champion" Georgia Tech (who made the game because North Carolina and Miami were ineligible for the postseason). The Yellow Jackets were 5-3 in the ACC that year, while Clemson again posted a 7-1 mark but had the misfortune of playing in the same division as Florida State.

Regardless, Pederson thinks the current format has value.

"I still like the idea that you win your division and go to the championship game. I think there are some neat things about that, so that's why I've been a proponent of staying in the divisions like we have."

And the two-division structure doesn't always skew the matchups. From 2005-11, the division winners were also the two teams with the best records in the conference.


Keeping FCS games

Another popular talking point in the national discussion of college football scheduling has been the elimination of FBS schools scheduling games with FCS schools. The so-called "rent-a-wins" - although they don't always work out that way - allow the FBS school to schedule an extra home game with no expectation of a return visit.

If the goal is to consistently schedule seven home games every year, then finding an opponent that doesn't require a home-and-home series becomes essential, Pederson said. And since there aren't many FBS programs that will be willing to regularly travel for a one-game series - like New Mexico did last year while Pitt and the Lobos were in desperate circumstances - Pederson said that the FCS games are almost a necessity.

"We had the discussion about it, and then I think the reality came that sometimes you might not have any choice (in order to) keep the pool big enough to find games."

Pederson added that he doesn't think any significant change is coming along those lines in college football.

"I didn't get the sense that very many people had any sentiment toward eliminating [FCS games]. If you don't want to schedule FCS schools at your institution, don't do it."

I find it interesting that, while he seems to be coming around to the idea of an 8 game schedule, he hasn't embraced the idea of the three permanent rivals and rotating the other 10 schools. He clearly wants to retain divisions. As much as it makes sense to many of us on boards like this, ADs don't always have the same goals we do.

Look at it from Pitt's point of view (and recognize that a lot of ACC schools are likely to have the same point of view). In a single division league, there is only one winner, and to even get to play for that championship, you will probably need to win at least 7 conference games. Realistically, a few schools are going to dominate in this setup, and Pitt's chances of being one of them are slim.

The Panthers have been playing in a balanced league, where you could win a title with a 5-3 record. Now they are in a balanced division where they can do the same thing and get to play in a high profile conference championship game. If they don't have that to compete for, then every year becomes little more than chasing bowl eligibility.

In a single division league whose reputation doesn't give its also rans the benefit of doubt, we could also find ourselves with only a single entry in the CFP and access bowls. If a second, or even third, loss for our conference runnerup means relegation to a minor bowl, it could cost schools like Pitt a lot of money.

I still like the single division concept, but I get why a lot of ADs might not.

(05-08-2014 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  I find it interesting that, while he seems to be coming around to the idea of an 8 game schedule, he hasn't embraced the idea of the three permanent rivals and rotating the other 10 schools. He clearly wants to retain divisions. As much as it makes sense to many of us on boards like this, ADs don't always have the same goals we do.

Look at it from Pitt's point of view (and recognize that a lot of ACC schools are likely to have the same point of view). In a single division league, there is only one winner, and to even get to play for that championship, you will probably need to win at least 7 conference games. Realistically, a few schools are going to dominate in this setup, and Pitt's chances of being one of them are slim.

The Panthers have been playing in a balanced league, where you could win a title with a 5-3 record. Now they are in a balanced division where they can do the same thing and get to play in a high profile conference championship game. If they don't have that to compete for, then every year becomes little more than chasing bowl eligibility.

In a single division league whose reputation doesn't give its also rans the benefit of doubt, we could also find ourselves with only a single entry in the CFP and access bowls. If a second, or even third, loss for our conference runnerup means relegation to a minor bowl, it could cost schools like Pitt a lot of money.

I still like the single division concept, but I get why a lot of ADs might not.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is exactly the reason ADs are hesitant about the divisionless 3 rivals + 5 rotating setup. However, they are missing one KEY point, IMO:

With 3 permanent rivals, who are your team's rivals going to be?
Florida State: Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson
Clemson: Florida State, Ga Tech, NC State (?)
Pittsburgh: Syracuse, Virginia/Va Tech (?), Miami (?)
UNC: Duke, Virginia, NC State

To get to the ACC CG in this scenario, you only need to dominate your 3 rivals and win 4 of the 5 rotating games. For FSU, dominating the rivals part won't be easy - I'd expect Clemson and/or Miami to rise up and beat them fairly often. On the other hand a team like UNC should be able to dominate their 3, so realistically they could lose one of the other 5 and still go to the ACC CG (and really, if UNC loses to even 1 of its 3 rivals they have no business in the CG anyway!)

So yes, eliminating divisions makes it harder to get to the CG, but reducing the number of permanent rivals also introduces a certain built-in handicapping which favors the very teams who are worried about it.

(05-08-2014 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  I find it interesting that, while he seems to be coming around to the idea of an 8 game schedule, he hasn't embraced the idea of the three permanent rivals and rotating the other 10 schools. He clearly wants to retain divisions. As much as it makes sense to many of us on boards like this, ADs don't always have the same goals we do.

Look at it from Pitt's point of view (and recognize that a lot of ACC schools are likely to have the same point of view). In a single division league, there is only one winner, and to even get to play for that championship, you will probably need to win at least 7 conference games. Realistically, a few schools are going to dominate in this setup, and Pitt's chances of being one of them are slim.

The Panthers have been playing in a balanced league, where you could win a title with a 5-3 record. Now they are in a balanced division where they can do the same thing and get to play in a high profile conference championship game. If they don't have that to compete for, then every year becomes little more than chasing bowl eligibility.

In a single division league whose reputation doesn't give its also rans the benefit of doubt, we could also find ourselves with only a single entry in the CFP and access bowls. If a second, or even third, loss for our conference runnerup means relegation to a minor bowl, it could cost schools like Pitt a lot of money.

I still like the single division concept, but I get why a lot of ADs might not.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is exactly the reason ADs are hesitant about the divisionless 3 rivals + 5 rotating setup. However, they are missing one KEY point, IMO:

With 3 permanent rivals, who are your team's rivals going to be?
Florida State: Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson
Clemson: Florida State, Ga Tech, NC State (?)
Pittsburgh: Syracuse, Virginia/Va Tech (?), Miami (?)
UNC: Duke, Virginia, NC State

To get to the ACC CG in this scenario, you only need to dominate your 3 rivals and win 4 of the 5 rotating games. For FSU, dominating the rivals part won't be easy - I'd expect Clemson and/or Miami to rise up and beat them fairly often. On the other hand a team like UNC should be able to dominate their 3, so realistically they could lose one of the other 5 and still go to the ACC CG (and really, if UNC loses to even 1 of its 3 rivals they have no business in the CG anyway!)

So yes, eliminating divisions makes it harder to get to the CG, but reducing the number of permanent rivals also introduces a certain built-in handicapping which favors the very teams who are worried about it.

Whether they should or not, the fact is they haven't, except for Duke (who everybody dominated until the last two years). For every year that a UNC does not have to play a Miami or Va Tech, they will have to face an FSU, or Clemson. The Heels haven't won more than 5 ACC games in 16 years. Tweaking the schedule isn't going to change that.

The purpose of going without divisions is to allow each school to play more often & to put the top programs in the best position to qualify for the playoffs or access bowls, so why not include each teams entire schedule similar to bcs to help determine the two best teams.

(05-08-2014 10:04 AM)mj4life Wrote:  The purpose of going without divisions is to allow each school to play more often & to put the top programs in the best position to qualify for the playoffs or access bowls, so why not include each teams entire schedule similar to bcs to help determine the two best teams.

Picking the highest-ranked teams takes control out of the hands of the ACC - something I doubt they want to do.

As for teams who want to keep the [Coastal] division arrangement to get to the championship game easier, I say: "Win more! Stop trying to gerrymander a way into the Orange Bowl - if you don't deserve it then get better!"

If you guys want to email ATHletic directors, email them about eliminating divisions. Pitt, Duke, Virginia Tech all want to keep divisions, I believe the 8 game schedule is set, but we have to convince them that no divisions is the way to go.

are they still waiting for ncaa to comment on the division thing?

(05-08-2014 10:04 AM)mj4life Wrote:  The purpose of going without divisions is to allow each school to play more often & to put the top programs in the best position to qualify for the playoffs or access bowls, so why not include each teams entire schedule similar to bcs to help determine the two best teams.

Have you looked at NC State's OOC lately? How fair is it for the rest of the ACC to play a competitive OOC while NC State plays Guilford, Benedict, Winston-Salem State, and High Point Christian Academy?

(05-08-2014 11:24 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  If you guys want to email ATHletic directors, email them about eliminating divisions. Pitt, Duke, Virginia Tech all want to keep divisions, I believe the 8 game schedule is set, but we have to convince them that no divisions is the way to go.

(05-08-2014 12:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  are they still waiting for ncaa to comment on the division thing?

The NCAA rules on the books still require divisions, but Debbie Yow indicated just yesterday that probably won't be much longer...

Yes, the next hurdle is to convince them that divisions are a bad thing which prevent teams from playing each other every other year, and that having a tougher road to the ACC CG is a small price to pay (but a fair one, TBH).

If anybody should be complaining about taking the top 2 teams for the ACC CG it's Clemson. After all, had they lost to FSU a 2nd time, would they have been selected to the Orange Bowl as an at-large? I doubt it.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is this:
1) no "true" divisions (more later)
2) 3 rivals per team
3) 5 rotating for a total of 8 ACC games
4) For the ACC CG, always pick the team with the best record in the following psuedo-divisions:
South: Miami, FSU, Ga Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest, NC State
East: UNC, Duke, Va Tech, UVa, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

IMPORTANT: those psuedo-divisions have NOTHING to do with scheduling; they are just for selecting ACC CG participants.

How it would've worked last year (using Maryland's in place of Louisville):

ACC South ACC
Florida St 8
Clemson 7
Miami (FL) 5
Ga Tech 5
Maryland 3
Wake F 2
NC State 0

ACC East ACC
Duke 6
Va Tech 5
Syracuse 4
Boston C 4
N Carolina 4
Pittsburgh 3
Virginia 0

Same 2 teams would've played: FSU vs Duke

(05-08-2014 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If anybody should be complaining about taking the top 2 teams for the ACC CG it's Clemson. After all, had they lost to FSU a 2nd time, would they have been selected to the Orange Bowl as an at-large? I doubt it.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is this:
1) no "true" divisions (more later)
2) 3 rivals per team
3) 5 rotating for a total of 8 ACC games
4) For the ACC CG, always pick the team with the best record in the following psuedo-divisions:
South: Miami, FSU, Ga Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest, NC State
East: UNC, Duke, Va Tech, UVa, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

IMPORTANT: those psuedo-divisions have NOTHING to do with scheduling; they are just for selecting ACC CG participants.

How it would've worked last year (using Maryland's in place of Louisville):

ACC South ACC
Florida St 8
Clemson 7
Miami (FL) 5
Ga Tech 5
Maryland 3
Wake F 2
NC State 0

ACC East ACC
Duke 6
Va Tech 5
Syracuse 4
Boston C 4
N Carolina 4
Pittsburgh 3
Virginia 0

Same 2 teams would've played: FSU vs Duke

I like the "pseudo-division" as a clever compromise that satisfies the desires of a lot of the league's ADs while still allowing the most frequent rotation of conference opponents. I don't suppose your suggested alignment of the pseudo-divisions had anything to do with your own rooting interest, did it?