I've been adamant and vocal on numerous message boards and twitter about the ACC overscheduling. I've specifically pointed to Virginia-UCLA, BC-USC, and VT-Ohio State, among others.

I still believe the ACC overschedules...no other conference has played 5 currently ranked top 25 teams...and that's BEFORE the ND cycle, and the SEC rivals at the end of the year.

The ACC has gone a very respectable 3-2 in those games, while the PAC has played only one game against a top 25 opponent. And yet zero respect in the polls.

That said, a key point in my argument was that those games weren't really winnable, and indeed I was wrong on that. I think we could still schedule a lot smarter (really, now UVA has to play BYU?) but it looks like we're closer to being able to schedule those games than I thought.

Considering nobody respects what is arguably the 2nd best OOC performance of any conference so far this year, we've got another slew of vital games coming up this weekend, let's get through one more with our heads above water.

(09-16-2014 03:32 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I've been adamant and vocal on numerous message boards and twitter about the ACC overscheduling. I've specifically pointed to Virginia-UCLA, BC-USC, and VT-Ohio State, among others.

I still believe the ACC overschedules...no other conference has played 5 currently ranked top 25 teams...and that's BEFORE the ND cycle, and the SEC rivals at the end of the year.

The ACC has gone a very respectable 3-2 in those games, while the PAC has played only one game against a top 25 opponent. And yet zero respect in the polls.

That said, a key point in my argument was that those games weren't really winnable, and indeed I was wrong on that. I think we could still schedule a lot smarter (really, now UVA has to play BYU?) but it looks like we're closer to being able to schedule those games than I thought.

Considering nobody respects what is arguably the 2nd best OOC performance of any conference so far this year, we've got another slew of vital games coming up this weekend, let's get through one more with our heads above water.

Thank you for this Lou. I still feel scheduling tough opponents and winning half of those games or more will improve the ACC's perception faster than taking the SEC route of OOC scheduling. The key difference between the two being the SEC needs to protect its football image whereas the ACC needs to create one honestly.

Cheers,
Neil

Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

I know you said this for a quick laugh. But actually, I hope we find room for Nova on our schedule in the future as our FCS opponent. We already play them in bb occasionally. I think we should play them in football occasionally as well.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

(09-16-2014 08:49 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

I know you said this for a quick laugh. But actually, I hope we find room for Nova on our schedule in the future as our FCS opponent. We already play them in bb occasionally. I think we should play them in football occasionally as well.

Cheers,
Neil

I have to agree with Neil. As much as it was a pretty damn scary game playing Villanova, I would like to continue scheduling them in the future. I love the fact that we will be playing them in basketball and would like to keep them on the football schedule also.

(09-16-2014 09:23 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:49 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

I know you said this for a quick laugh. But actually, I hope we find room for Nova on our schedule in the future as our FCS opponent. We already play them in bb occasionally. I think we should play them in football occasionally as well.

Cheers,
Neil

I have to agree with Neil. As much as it was a pretty damn scary game playing Villanova, I would like to continue scheduling them in the future. I love the fact that we will be playing them in basketball and would like to keep them on the football schedule also.

We should schedule Nova, Colgate, and the Ivy's (especially Cornell). I am against playing any other FCS team (except possibly Georgetown - I'm not sure how I feel about that).

(09-16-2014 11:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:23 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:49 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

I know you said this for a quick laugh. But actually, I hope we find room for Nova on our schedule in the future as our FCS opponent. We already play them in bb occasionally. I think we should play them in football occasionally as well.

Cheers,
Neil

I have to agree with Neil. As much as it was a pretty damn scary game playing Villanova, I would like to continue scheduling them in the future. I love the fact that we will be playing them in basketball and would like to keep them on the football schedule also.

We should schedule Nova, Colgate, and the Ivy's (especially Cornell). I am against playing any other FCS team (except possibly Georgetown - I'm not sure how I feel about that).

Colgate, Nova, Fordham, Stony Brook, Maine, and Rhode Island should be the FCS teams we rotate through with Colgate and Nova being the primary targets.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-16-2014 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

Agree with two P5, but I would say one would need to be upper echelon or above mid-tier (although they may not be in the particular year they are played) and the other middle to low tier.

This is why I never thought Maryland and ND in the same year was over-scheduling. Yes, we can lose to the Twerps, but they are a middle to low tier team in terms of P5.

PSU and Oklahoma State are both above mid-tier status, if not technically upper echelon.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-17-2014 08:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

Agree with two P5, but I would say one would need to be upper echelon or above mid-tier (although they may not be in the particular year they are played) and the other middle to low tier.

This is why I never thought Maryland and ND in the same year was over-scheduling. Yes, we can lose to the Twerps, but they are a middle to low tier team in terms of P5.

PSU and Oklahoma State are both above mid-tier status, if not technically upper echelon.

Cheers,
Neil

Syracuse SHOULD beat Maryland - particularly at home.
Orange, don't mess this up, please!

(09-17-2014 09:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 08:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

Agree with two P5, but I would say one would need to be upper echelon or above mid-tier (although they may not be in the particular year they are played) and the other middle to low tier.

This is why I never thought Maryland and ND in the same year was over-scheduling. Yes, we can lose to the Twerps, but they are a middle to low tier team in terms of P5.

PSU and Oklahoma State are both above mid-tier status, if not technically upper echelon.

Cheers,
Neil

Syracuse SHOULD beat Maryland - particularly at home.
Orange, don't mess this up, please!

I agree we should beat Maryland at home. But then the Nova game happened, so some are a little worried.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-17-2014 08:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

Agree with two P5, but I would say one would need to be upper echelon or above mid-tier (although they may not be in the particular year they are played) and the other middle to low tier.

This is why I never thought Maryland and ND in the same year was over-scheduling. Yes, we can lose to the Twerps, but they are a middle to low tier team in terms of P5.

PSU and Oklahoma State are both above mid-tier status, if not technically upper echelon.

Cheers,
Neil

One power 5 game does NOT have to be upper tier for everyone. The myriad of ACC teams that are trying to scrape and claw out of a decade of mediocrity do NOT have to schedule LSU, USC, etc, this years wins not withstanding. They probably shouldn't.

Pitt has a great schedule, for Pitt. It's perfect. Pitt going 4-0 with a win over a power five program (should they get it) is great for the conference. They'll likely be ranked.

As good as the USC and Ohio State wins are for the ACC, the residual respect for those games is nonexistent. Neither victor is ranked, while both losers are ranked. Playing a second tough team like ECU after playing Ohio State did nothing for the ACC, VT would have been better off with Georgia State.

We need ranked teams more than we need big OOC wins by unranked teams. To me, Pitt's schedule is perfect to be ranked, like Maryland's was last year. FSU's demolition of a ranked Maryland team last year announced them on the national title radar.

Luckily we have a bunch of teams hanging around the 25-30 perimeter, so if we get a couple wins and a couple breaks we could get some more ranked teams.

(09-17-2014 10:10 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 08:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt is not over scheduled this year. Iowa, FIU, Akron and Delaware are the OOC games.

Well, to be fair to Lou, I don't think he would have said Pitt has overscheduled this year. He would probably believe scheduling PSU and Okla St in the same year twice would be though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's true, but I would say that if you want your program to become stronger, 2 P5 matchups are needed if you have 4 OOC games to play with. The PAC, B1G and Big12 will be playing conference slates that will make it a necessity for SEC and ACC schools to scheduling 2 P5s/year in order to have an equivalency in the schedules.

Agree with two P5, but I would say one would need to be upper echelon or above mid-tier (although they may not be in the particular year they are played) and the other middle to low tier.

This is why I never thought Maryland and ND in the same year was over-scheduling. Yes, we can lose to the Twerps, but they are a middle to low tier team in terms of P5.

PSU and Oklahoma State are both above mid-tier status, if not technically upper echelon.

Cheers,
Neil

One power 5 game does NOT have to be upper tier for everyone. The myriad of ACC teams that are trying to scrape and claw out of a decade of mediocrity do NOT have to schedule LSU, USC, etc, this years wins not withstanding. They probably shouldn't.

Pitt has a great schedule, for Pitt. It's perfect. Pitt going 4-0 with a win over a power five program (should they get it) is great for the conference. They'll likely be ranked.

As good as the USC and Ohio State wins are for the ACC, the residual respect for those games is nonexistent. Neither victor is ranked, while both losers are ranked. Playing a second tough team like ECU after playing Ohio State did nothing for the ACC, VT would have been better off with Georgia State.

We need ranked teams more than we need big OOC wins by unranked teams. To me, Pitt's schedule is perfect to be ranked, like Maryland's was last year. FSU's demolition of a ranked Maryland team last year announced them on the national title radar.

Luckily we have a bunch of teams hanging around the 25-30 perimeter, so if we get a couple wins and a couple breaks we could get some more ranked teams.

Agree about not needing to be upper-tier for all (which I interpret as King/Goliath status), but if it's not a King/Goliath, it should be at least a Baron level team for any bowl eligible team to create a better football profile.

West Virginia qualifies for that latter type of team for the ACC. although the Eers were not that type of team last year.

Btw, disagree about Maryland helping FSU (or the ACC for that matter) last year by getting up to #25 just before being crushed by the Noles.

I believe FSU was already ranked #6 in both polls prior to that game. After the win they were still 6/6.

FSU's subsequent gains in the polls were a result of loss by Stanford, them beating Clemson, the loss by Oregon and then eventually the loss by Alabama.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  this year is how coach shafer wants Syracuse to schedule for the forseable future. 1 bigger game,1 lower level p5 team, 1 mac g 5 level team and 1 fcs team

As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

next year were playing rhode island the year after colgate for our fcs game

(09-16-2014 03:32 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I've been adamant and vocal on numerous message boards and twitter about the ACC overscheduling. I've specifically pointed to Virginia-UCLA, BC-USC, and VT-Ohio State, among others.

I still believe the ACC overschedules...no other conference has played 5 currently ranked top 25 teams...and that's BEFORE the ND cycle, and the SEC rivals at the end of the year.

The ACC has gone a very respectable 3-2 in those games, while the PAC has played only one game against a top 25 opponent. And yet zero respect in the polls.

That said, a key point in my argument was that those games weren't really winnable, and indeed I was wrong on that. I think we could still schedule a lot smarter (really, now UVA has to play BYU?) but it looks like we're closer to being able to schedule those games than I thought.

Considering nobody respects what is arguably the 2nd best OOC performance of any conference so far this year, we've got another slew of vital games coming up this weekend, let's get through one more with our heads above water.

To be the best, you have to play and beat the best!

(09-17-2014 08:17 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:23 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:49 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:34 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  As long as that FCS team isnt Villanova or any one of their ilk.

I know you said this for a quick laugh. But actually, I hope we find room for Nova on our schedule in the future as our FCS opponent. We already play them in bb occasionally. I think we should play them in football occasionally as well.

Cheers,
Neil

I have to agree with Neil. As much as it was a pretty damn scary game playing Villanova, I would like to continue scheduling them in the future. I love the fact that we will be playing them in basketball and would like to keep them on the football schedule also.

We should schedule Nova, Colgate, and the Ivy's (especially Cornell). I am against playing any other FCS team (except possibly Georgetown - I'm not sure how I feel about that).

Colgate, Nova, Fordham, Stony Brook, Maine, and Rhode Island should be the FCS teams we rotate through with Colgate and Nova being the primary targets.

Cheers,
Neil

That's a good mix, Neil.

(09-17-2014 03:54 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  We should schedule Nova, Colgate, and the Ivy's (especially Cornell). I am against playing any other FCS team (except possibly Georgetown - I'm not sure how I feel about that).

Unfortunately, you can't count a win over an Ivy towards bowl eligibility since they don't award athletic scholarships.

I thought we did a couple of years ago.