From the article:

Maintaining an eight-game scheduling model for ACC football has significant support entering a vote of league athletic directors this week in Amelia Island, Fla., several sources told CBSSports.com.

“Momentum seems to be going that way but a discussion and vote is a few days away,” UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham said Sunday night via text.

Added a separate athletic director who has supported a nine-game model: “I think it's leaning toward an eight-game model. That's what it feels like."

The ACC is the last of the five power conferences to decide on the surprisingly divisive eight-vs-nine issue among college football fans.

The ACC is also not as set on the direction as the SEC, whose officials were overwhelmingly in support of eight league games. An ESPN.com story in late April revealed half the ACC's athletic directors prefer nine games.

But as one league athletic director pointed out, much of the legwork has been done well before the meetings. Athletic directors have been discussing this either privately or in meetings for months.

Faculty athletic representatives ratify the athletic directors' vote, which should come Tuesday or Wednesday. Sources stress that the discussions will be thorough and that nothing has been finalized. Directors from recent full-time additions (Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville) plus Virginia Tech athletic director Whit Babcock (hired in January) could prefer a spirited debate in Amelia Island.

Looming large in the decision are league powers Clemson and FSU, both of which favor eight.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ilng-model

Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

we don't know this yet, let it play out.

(05-12-2014 09:06 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

Why does the one (non-standard CG selection) follow the other (8 vs 9 game schedule)? They are independent issues.

Is this, in your opinion, bad leadership because the league is seeking consensus among its members instead of dictating solutions?

Great decision by the ACC. Let's hope Swofford signs a lifetime contract so that we can always benefit from his visionary leadership.

(05-12-2014 09:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:06 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

Why does the one (non-standard CG selection) follow the other (8 vs 9 game schedule)? They are independent issues.

Is this, in your opinion, bad leadership because the league is seeking consensus among its members instead of dictating solutions?

Because the writing is on the wall for keeping the status quo which is worse than the best solution. At least isnt 9 games with these same crap divisions.

(05-12-2014 09:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:06 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

Why does the one (non-standard CG selection) follow the other (8 vs 9 game schedule)? They are independent issues.

Is this, in your opinion, bad leadership because the league is seeking consensus among its members instead of dictating solutions?

Because the writing is on the wall for keeping the status quo which is worse than the best solution. At least isnt 9 games with these same crap divisions.

Which part of the article suggests "the writing is on the wall" for keeping the status quo? It seems to me that there is evidence that the same sort of evolution in thinking that we've seem on forums like this is happening with ADs. They are privately discussing these issues, and those discussions are changing minds. Is that a bad thing?

(05-12-2014 09:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:06 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

Why does the one (non-standard CG selection) follow the other (8 vs 9 game schedule)? They are independent issues.

Is this, in your opinion, bad leadership because the league is seeking consensus among its members instead of dictating solutions?

Because the writing is on the wall for keeping the status quo which is worse than the best solution. At least isnt 9 games with these same crap divisions.

How can the ACC implement something that hasn't even been approved yet by the NCAA? It is an item to be discussed.

I find it interesting how the Big 12 is positioning itself. On one side of the issue is the Pac12/B1G and the other side ACC/SEC.

(05-12-2014 10:15 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:06 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why ask for the non standard championship game setup if you aren't even going to follow up on it? Typical terrible leadership and actions by the ACC.

Why does the one (non-standard CG selection) follow the other (8 vs 9 game schedule)? They are independent issues.

Is this, in your opinion, bad leadership because the league is seeking consensus among its members instead of dictating solutions?

Because the writing is on the wall for keeping the status quo which is worse than the best solution. At least isnt 9 games with these same crap divisions.

How can the ACC implement something that hasn't even been approved yet by the NCAA? It is an item to be discussed.

I find it interesting how the Big 12 is positioning itself. On one side of the issue is the Pac12/B1G and the other side ACC/SEC.

It "feels" like the Big XII will side with the ACC and SEC on scheduling and championship issues.

To be honest, even though the Big Ten and Pac-12 favor 9 conference games, I don't see them being opposed to conference autonomy on the championship issue - I think that will be unanimous.