(05-14-2014 11:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You note in all this who is complaining about the 14 team conferences....its not the people actually in them.

Don't see me complaining.

This may be way to simplistic, but if the B1G teams and ACC teams both need some P5 OOC games, couldn't they just schedule each other for a few games?

Just go to 16 and split in half by geographic lines. That'll put them back at 8 team leagues with "scheduling alliances" with their sister conference.

(05-14-2014 11:25 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Just go to 16 and split in half by geographic lines. That'll put them back at 8 team leagues with "scheduling alliances" with their sister conference.

The Big 10 is doing a geographic split. But traditional rivalries like Indiana/Illinois and Purdue/OSU will only be held once every 3 years, even with the 9 game schedule.

The biggest impact is for Indiana and Purdue (because they play the only permanent crossover), but it's still a big impact. But other rivalries (like Michigan/Minnesota and Illinois/Ohio State) will only be played at home once every four years. Also OSU, MSU, Indiana, and Michigan like to play in Chicago for alumni relations, and they'll only do that once every 4 years.

(05-14-2014 08:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  This is too funny! Playing OOC against yourself. That will conflict eventually when the team that won actually needs to count that as a conference game to get to a title game or a higher bowl.

Go to freaking 9 games or 10 if you are so concern about not playing other teams.

This is why Super Conferences will not last very long.

Incest is best?

(05-14-2014 09:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Perfectly fine with me. It resolves the issue of not being too restrictive on schools that have valuable non-conference rivalries (i.e. FSU/UF, Clemson/South Carolina, etc.), but allowing others to play their non-conference mates more often if they choose to do so. From a financial perspective, it also creates more TV inventory for the conferences.

I agree there is a bigger upside and only an occasional downside that everyone understands before the games are played.

(05-14-2014 11:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You note in all this who is complaining about the 14 team conferences....its not the people actually in them.

Maybe you're just talking about on these boards, but I hear ACC fans complain about the 14/15 team ACC every single day. Heck, I still hear older ones complaining that they went past 9.

Full retard. We've gone there.

I predict eventually the teams that average less than 50k a game will go to just 6 homes a year. These are the most likely to just schedule an OOC game against an in conference opponent.

In the big ten, this means Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, NW, minnesota, Rutgers and MD. Except Rutgers and MD will probably schedule their extra games against the ACC or WV.

But it probably makes sense for illinois to schedule extra games against Indiana.

(05-14-2014 11:25 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  This may be way to simplistic, but if the B1G teams and ACC teams both need some P5 OOC games, couldn't they just schedule each other for a few games?

Get outa here with that logical stuff! Don't you know this is sports here?

(05-14-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:25 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  This may be way to simplistic, but if the B1G teams and ACC teams both need some P5 OOC games, couldn't they just schedule each other for a few games?

Get outa here with that logical stuff! Don't you know this is sports here?

Very simple... by playing each other, their TV contract maintains the rights for the game. Playing the Big 10 would cause them to lose 1 of the 2 games OOC for TV, hence possibly devaluing their TV rights.

(05-14-2014 11:25 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  This may be way to simplistic, but if the B1G teams and ACC teams both need some P5 OOC games, couldn't they just schedule each other for a few games?

See, now this actually makes sense. Playing a team from your conference as an OOC game is silly.

You'd think the interest that these games would drum up would bring more value than playing a team from your own conference.

(05-14-2014 11:25 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  This may be way to simplistic, but if the B1G teams and ACC teams both need some P5 OOC games, couldn't they just schedule each other for a few games?

Lumber.. where are you, sir?

In your absence, I will quote one of your gems from PackPride..

Quote:Think of it this way.

Let's say you are NC State's AD.

You can play home and home with Duke or you can play Minnesota or Washington State. Your job as AD is to sell tickets.

You will sell no more tickets to Minnesota or WSU than Duke. Your stadium has no excess capacity. Your fans willing to travel will not go the distance to WSU and have no desire to go to Minnesota.

If you play Duke, your fans get two defacto home games, the one in Raleigh and the one in Durham as NC State fans will soak up the 15K excess capacity at Wallace Wade. You don't have to pay a bill for travel as it's a defacto home game. Your season ticket holders get the first priority in Durham so you can easily make thousands of them happy - all but the ones who demand plenty of tailgating space.

As AD, what do you do? What's the best business decision, not the best football decision?

Moreover, no one from Minnesota or Washington State want to come to Raleigh for a road trip. Raleigh is not Florida, not Chicago, not NYC, not California - it's just a very, very large suburbanized area - great for families but not enticing for tourists.

As NC State AD what do you do? Moreover as WSU or Minn. AD, what do you do?

I'll let Lumber explain why a school like NC State has limited choices when it comes to scheduling true OOC games with non-ACC P5 members.

(05-14-2014 01:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  Very simple... by playing each other, their TV contract maintains the rights for the game. Playing the Big 10 would cause them to lose 1 of the 2 games OOC for TV, hence possibly devaluing their TV rights.

This, too.

I don't see what the fuss is - especially for the ACC. Most likely, you're only going to see one more "OOC game in conference", and even there it will likely be at most a few teams within the conference at best. The PAC did it a few years ago with Cal and CU in order to finish out an earlier agreement. It was simpler to do that. Everyone assumes that this will result in more of the conferences closing ranks amongst themselves. I don't see that happening. Most likely, there will be some shortfall where a P5 has zero interest in scheduling a "dangerous G5 program", but other P5 programs are unable to accommodate the schedule.

It's not that big of a deal, because in the end the P5 will have some interest in wanting to play other P5 OOC, it's just that with a large percentage of the schools wanting to keep 7 home games, it makes it hard to get everything to work out all the time.

I agree, there is no fuss, except for some in message board world.[/align]

(05-14-2014 03:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't see what the fuss is - especially for the ACC. Most likely, you're only going to see one more "OOC game in conference", and even there it will likely be at most a few teams within the conference at best. The PAC did it a few years ago with Cal and CU in order to finish out an earlier agreement. It was simpler to do that. Everyone assumes that this will result in more of the conferences closing ranks amongst themselves. I don't see that happening. Most likely, there will be some shortfall where a P5 has zero interest in scheduling a "dangerous G5 program", but other P5 programs are unable to accommodate the schedule.

It's not that big of a deal, because in the end the P5 will have some interest in wanting to play other P5 OOC, it's just that with a large percentage of the schools wanting to keep 7 home games, it makes it hard to get everything to work out all the time.

So does that mean 1 and done's with your own conference opponent?

Whatever makes the ACC and Big 10 more foolish is fine by me. Let's play 9 games within conference but only count 8 as in-conference. Sounds like the decline of education where 9=8 is catching up to the colleges now.

(05-14-2014 03:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't see what the fuss is - especially for the ACC. Most likely, you're only going to see one more "OOC game in conference", and even there it will likely be at most a few teams within the conference at best. The PAC did it a few years ago with Cal and CU in order to finish out an earlier agreement. It was simpler to do that. Everyone assumes that this will result in more of the conferences closing ranks amongst themselves. I don't see that happening. Most likely, there will be some shortfall where a P5 has zero interest in scheduling a "dangerous G5 program", but other P5 programs are unable to accommodate the schedule.

It's not that big of a deal, because in the end the P5 will have some interest in wanting to play other P5 OOC, it's just that with a large percentage of the schools wanting to keep 7 home games, it makes it hard to get everything to work out all the time.

I think most people understand this may make sense financially or logistically, but looking at it from the sport's perspective, it just doesn't. Playing teams in your own conference as an OOC game just seems like lazy scheduling. If you use it as a last resort, fine. But that doesn't seem like what the idea is here.

I don't think anyone should have a 'problem' with it per se. Schools can do whatever they want. It's just that it really doesn't seem to keep the integrity of a schedule. I feel like fans would enjoy seeing some new schools they don't play every once in a while too.

Swofford on possible non-conference games b/w ACC teams: "If it does happen in the future, I think it would be very minimal"

(05-14-2014 03:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 03:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't see what the fuss is - especially for the ACC. Most likely, you're only going to see one more "OOC game in conference", and even there it will likely be at most a few teams within the conference at best. The PAC did it a few years ago with Cal and CU in order to finish out an earlier agreement. It was simpler to do that. Everyone assumes that this will result in more of the conferences closing ranks amongst themselves. I don't see that happening. Most likely, there will be some shortfall where a P5 has zero interest in scheduling a "dangerous G5 program", but other P5 programs are unable to accommodate the schedule.

It's not that big of a deal, because in the end the P5 will have some interest in wanting to play other P5 OOC, it's just that with a large percentage of the schools wanting to keep 7 home games, it makes it hard to get everything to work out all the time.

So does that mean 1 and done's with your own conference opponent?

Whatever makes the ACC and Big 10 more foolish is fine by me. Let's play 9 games within conference but only count 8 as in-conference. Sounds like the decline of education where 9=8 is catching up to the colleges now.

I can't recall the year, but I believe that IU sold one of its home games to OSU.

Regarding the ACC, there are a number of schools that have annual rivals in the SEC (FSU, Clemson, GT which play permanent ones, and UL which MIGHT end up having a permanent rivalry with UK). Couple that with the 5 annual game agreement with ND and it makes the ACC situation more unique. At the end of the day, we're talking about maybe 2 schools playing each other, on occasion, in the event of a shortfall. For all we know, the ACC may never experience a situation where it has to schedule an in conference OOC game. The SEC, too, is playing only 8 conf games. There may be more communication between the ACC and SEC in the future to schedule games with each other on an informal basis at the school level.