(01-28-2015 09:31 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There was a proposal last year to end the reqirement of a 6-6 record for bowl eligibility. It did not pass that time but I would not be surprised to see them put it back up there again soon. The argument is that the TV people would expect better ratings of a bowl game pitting a 6-6 P6 schools vs. a 4-8 Indiana or Kansas instead of an G5 school.

There is truth in this...

a game featuring say a 6-6 Ohio State vs a 6-6 or even 5-7 ND would have much higher ratings than a game of say 10-2 Northern Illinois vs 11-1 Tulsa


just pulling names out of a hat here but you get the point...

Just my opinion, but if tO$U is 6-6 and ND is 5-7, both coaches would be fired, the fanbase would be in an uproar, and their spoiled fans would turn up their noses and likely not watch or attend.

Agree that their fans would be in an uproar and coaches would be fired (FWIW, OSU was 6-6 a couple years ago and they fired Luke Fickell and hired Urb).

That being said, their fans would still watch and the casual fan would still watch. We are dedicated fans of our school but to most of America they care more about the name of the teams than the quality on the field. I remember a couple years ago I was visiting the in-laws for the holidays and my wife's uncle did not understand why Notre Dame was playing Rutgers in the Pinstripe Bowl (he is not a Notre Dame fan). To him, it was beneath a school like Notre Dame to play in a bowl like that against Rutgers and schools like Notre Dame should always be playing "a big name school" in a "traditional bowl game". It did not matter to him that Notre Dame was 8-4 or what have you that year.

(01-28-2015 09:31 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There was a proposal last year to end the reqirement of a 6-6 record for bowl eligibility. It did not pass that time but I would not be surprised to see them put it back up there again soon. The argument is that the TV people would expect better ratings of a bowl game pitting a 6-6 P6 schools vs. a 4-8 Indiana or Kansas instead of an G5 school.

There is truth in this...

a game featuring say a 6-6 Ohio State vs a 6-6 or even 5-7 ND would have much higher ratings than a game of say 10-2 Northern Illinois vs 11-1 Tulsa


just pulling names out of a hat here but you get the point...

Just my opinion, but if tO$U is 6-6 and ND is 5-7, both coaches would be fired, the fanbase would be in an uproar, and their spoiled fans would turn up their noses and likely not watch or attend.

TV rarely plays to the diehard fans that will probably turn on their set anyway. Casual viewers would rather watch a game with two teams with recognizable names than two directional schools.

(01-28-2015 11:20 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:31 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There was a proposal last year to end the reqirement of a 6-6 record for bowl eligibility. It did not pass that time but I would not be surprised to see them put it back up there again soon. The argument is that the TV people would expect better ratings of a bowl game pitting a 6-6 P6 schools vs. a 4-8 Indiana or Kansas instead of an G5 school.

There is truth in this...

a game featuring say a 6-6 Ohio State vs a 6-6 or even 5-7 ND would have much higher ratings than a game of say 10-2 Northern Illinois vs 11-1 Tulsa


just pulling names out of a hat here but you get the point...

Just my opinion, but if tO$U is 6-6 and ND is 5-7, both coaches would be fired, the fanbase would be in an uproar, and their spoiled fans would turn up their noses and likely not watch or attend.

TV rarely plays to the diehard fans that will probably turn on their set anyway. Casual viewers would rather watch a game with two teams with recognizable names than two directional schools.

If it's a minor bowl in a backwater time slot on espnnews, "casual fans" won't be watching either. No one will.

Taken from the realigment board, but it looks like Duke-NC State are now working to schedule an "OOC" game against one another.

(01-28-2015 01:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Not as easy as people think it will be. NCSU could buyout @Troy for 2017 and try to get Duke home. Duke probably buys out NCCU or tries to move its away game with Army to another season. Then Duke would play again at NCSU in 2020. Then NCSU heads back to Duke in 2023 since they have ND that season at Home. I think an every 3 year arrangement would be great. Great way to minimize travel costs and basically both teams have home games since State and Duke are only 25 miles apart.


http://balldurham.com/2015/01/27/duke-ho...te-future/

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of these type games. It will play right into the Conference Networks (ACC Network) picking up more games that will drive higher advertising rates by playing right into the sweet spot of interest.

Even a road game is a home game the ACC TV contract owns rights to.

edit: I will add it creates a little problem for the Big 12 in that it doesn't make a lot of sense for one Big 12 team to play another Big 12 team ooc when you meet them all in conference play every year. But hey, the Big 12 doesn't even have a network or similar subscription model being talked about (that I have heard of).

One thing about money... the more you make, the more you want to make.

Down the road expect conferences to take back basketball. No sense giving the NCAA a 30-40% (or whatever the NCAA gets) cut of 600-700M per year.

Just the # of games in a basketball season make it ideal for this type scheduling.

(01-28-2015 01:35 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Taken from the realigment board, but it looks like Duke-NC State are now working to schedule an "OOC" game against one another.

(01-28-2015 01:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Not as easy as people think it will be. NCSU could buyout @Troy for 2017 and try to get Duke home. Duke probably buys out NCCU or tries to move its away game with Army to another season. Then Duke would play again at NCSU in 2020. Then NCSU heads back to Duke in 2023 since they have ND that season at Home. I think an every 3 year arrangement would be great. Great way to minimize travel costs and basically both teams have home games since State and Duke are only 25 miles apart.


http://balldurham.com/2015/01/27/duke-ho...te-future/

So in 2 days that is already at least 5 ACC schools exploring it. So I guess this isn't a one off just for teams across town anymore? Bunch of pessimists.

With all this interconference scheduling happening all of sudden just in the ACC, people who are thinking that the schools already know the wavier will be denied seems to gaining credence.

(01-28-2015 09:31 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There was a proposal last year to end the reqirement of a 6-6 record for bowl eligibility. It did not pass that time but I would not be surprised to see them put it back up there again soon. The argument is that the TV people would expect better ratings of a bowl game pitting a 6-6 P6 schools vs. a 4-8 Indiana or Kansas instead of an G5 school.

There is truth in this...

a game featuring say a 6-6 Ohio State vs a 6-6 or even 5-7 ND would have much higher ratings than a game of say 10-2 Northern Illinois vs 11-1 Tulsa


just pulling names out of a hat here but you get the point...

Just my opinion, but if tO$U is 6-6 and ND is 5-7, both coaches would be fired, the fanbase would be in an uproar, and their spoiled fans would turn up their noses and likely not watch or attend.

The bigger picture...yes. But dealing with what I said as a snapshot in time, this bowl game would still bring more viewers than No. Ill vs Tulsa. So really, whether Urban and BK were fired for 6-6 or 5-7 seasons is not relevant. And when I say more viewers I mean TV not butts in seats. But I'd be willing to wager it would be well attended anyway.

(01-28-2015 06:05 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  With all this interconference scheduling happening all of sudden just in the ACC, people who are thinking that the schools already know the wavier will be denied seems to gaining credence.

Regarding the waiver, your point does seem plausible in light of this decision.

Upon further reflection, it's also interesting to think this may be another nudge toward B12 expansion. Member schools who were reluctant to give up rivalries with the TX or OK schools could now retain an annual rivalry game against a school from the other division. For Texas, that might mean playing an extra game in their own sandbox each season--against say Kansas or Kansas State; preserving a secondary rivalry with a conference foe. Or they could now split TX and OK into separate divisions and have them meet every year in a "non-conference" game, leaving the door open for a rematch; likely the B12 dream scenario of a TX v. OK championship game. That's must see TV for most college football fans.

So when Bowlsby says the CCG is a poor reason to expand, if the waiver is denied he can argue the rules have indeed changed and the B12 is willing to expand so long as they can schedule non-conference games against member schools in the other division, preserving rivalries and traditions.

ACC in breeding scheduling definitely could be plus for UC. Big 12 needing more teams to schedule OOC games. ACC architecture expanding for additional teams, four pods and even more network inventory. We will see.

(01-27-2015 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There was a proposal last year to end the reqirement of a 6-6 record for bowl eligibility. It did not pass that time but I would not be surprised to see them put it back up there again soon. The argument is that the TV people would expect better ratings of a bowl game pitting a 6-6 P6 schools vs. a 4-8 Indiana or Kansas instead of an G5 school.

I agree that the rules for Bowl qualification could be easily changed.

Also, an up to 1M buy game where the money is essentially kept in the conference.

I think Bowl games are tough for most schools to make money on. Looking at it from an administration view, money flowing to the bottom line is more important.