https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1767028

Practically every participant at the meetings expressed a desire for a change to the current football rotation, which sees several teams squaring off only once every six years. But the group was no closer to a solution when the meetings adjourned than when they began four days earlier.

"In the end, everybody may have to give up something," FSU athletics director Stan Wilcox told Warchant. "And we're trying to minimize what has to be given up. There are a couple options that we've looked at, and we've asked them to give us more options. So the conference is going to go back and work on different options."

Several ACC administrators and football coaches have voiced disappointment that their players will not get the opportunity to face every school in the conference before graduating.

"I would love for a guy to come to Clemson and be able to play everybody in the league at least once during his career," Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said.

Unless compromise is reached on one of three fronts, however, a solution could be difficult to come by. Either some traditional rivals will have to accept not facing each other every year, the conference will have to shuffle its divisions, or the league must move to a nine-game ACC schedule.

In a tight vote at last year's meetings, the conference decided to stick with an eight-game ACC slate. The nine-game option, which would ensure that schools face every conference opponent within a three-year span but would also limit the options for high-profile non-conference games, was not discussed this year. But Swofford said it could be revisited.

"I don't think that's gone away as a possibility," he said.

One option with an eight-game schedule, Swofford said, would be to shuffle schools so that traditional rivals would be placed in the same divisions. That would mean moving Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson to the Coastal Division, or sending Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to the Atlantic.

Of course, a move like that would bring about a different set of issues, such as competitive balance between the two divisions.

"When those rivalry games are within a division, that's easy," Swofford said. "When they're not, that's when you get into probably complicating the schedule some. So we'll continue to look at that and see if there are better ways to reach that common thread of playing each other as frequently as we can, because that's part of being a conference."

(05-18-2015 01:37 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1767028

Practically every participant at the meetings expressed a desire for a change to the current football rotation, which sees several teams squaring off only once every six years. But the group was no closer to a solution when the meetings adjourned than when they began four days earlier.

"In the end, everybody may have to give up something," FSU athletics director Stan Wilcox told Warchant. "And we're trying to minimize what has to be given up. There are a couple options that we've looked at, and we've asked them to give us more options. So the conference is going to go back and work on different options."

Several ACC administrators and football coaches have voiced disappointment that their players will not get the opportunity to face every school in the conference before graduating.

"I would love for a guy to come to Clemson and be able to play everybody in the league at least once during his career," Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said.

Unless compromise is reached on one of three fronts, however, a solution could be difficult to come by. Either some traditional rivals will have to accept not facing each other every year, the conference will have to shuffle its divisions, or the league must move to a nine-game ACC schedule.

In a tight vote at last year's meetings, the conference decided to stick with an eight-game ACC slate. The nine-game option, which would ensure that schools face every conference opponent within a three-year span but would also limit the options for high-profile non-conference games, was not discussed this year. But Swofford said it could be revisited.

"I don't think that's gone away as a possibility," he said.

One option with an eight-game schedule, Swofford said, would be to shuffle schools so that traditional rivals would be placed in the same divisions. That would mean moving Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson to the Coastal Division, or sending Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to the Atlantic.

Of course, a move like that would bring about a different set of issues, such as competitive balance between the two divisions.

"When those rivalry games are within a division, that's easy," Swofford said. "When they're not, that's when you get into probably complicating the schedule some. So we'll continue to look at that and see if there are better ways to reach that common thread of playing each other as frequently as we can, because that's part of being a conference."

This is what that means:

Miami - BC
FSU - Syracuse
GT - VT
Clemson - Pitt
UNC - UVa
NCSU - WF
Duke - Louisville

(05-18-2015 12:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  That takes you back to the 7-home-games problem. In the case of Louisville, if they want 7 home games then the ONLY P5 non-conference teams you will EVER play are Kentucky and Notre Dame (and the years ND is a road game you only get 6 home games). No more Chick-Fil-A vs. Auburn. That's why FSU, GT, Clemson and U of L are (and should be) dead set AGAINST 9 conference games no matter what (UNLESS there is a rule mandating no more than 6 home games for EVERY team, which probably won't happen).

From a Louisville perspective, UofL rarely has more than 6 home games. I think there have been7 twice and 8 once. UofL plays everyone home and home, so it doesn't matter if it is an extra conference game or series vs. Houston, it results in the same number of home games. From a Louisville perspective we don't really care, other than the affect it has on the conference as a whole.

None of that matters, with 9 conference games the TV money will increase substantially. Follow the money and you will get your answer every time. 1 game increase times 14 schools adds lots of $$$$$$$$$.

(05-18-2015 02:53 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  None of that matters, with 9 conference games the TV money will increase substantially. Follow the money and you will get your answer every time. 1 game increase times 14 schools adds lots of $$$$$$$$$.

Your math is off. One extra conference game per team is actually only 7 more games. And it takes away between 7-14 OOC home off the schedule (depending on if the extra conference game replaces a home and home or buy game). Now conference games are more valuable than out of conference games because they are predictable (you know who the opponent will be each year), but the math is not as simple as you make it.

(05-18-2015 01:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:37 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1767028

Practically every participant at the meetings expressed a desire for a change to the current football rotation, which sees several teams squaring off only once every six years. But the group was no closer to a solution when the meetings adjourned than when they began four days earlier.

"In the end, everybody may have to give up something," FSU athletics director Stan Wilcox told Warchant. "And we're trying to minimize what has to be given up. There are a couple options that we've looked at, and we've asked them to give us more options. So the conference is going to go back and work on different options."

Several ACC administrators and football coaches have voiced disappointment that their players will not get the opportunity to face every school in the conference before graduating.

"I would love for a guy to come to Clemson and be able to play everybody in the league at least once during his career," Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said.

Unless compromise is reached on one of three fronts, however, a solution could be difficult to come by. Either some traditional rivals will have to accept not facing each other every year, the conference will have to shuffle its divisions, or the league must move to a nine-game ACC schedule.

In a tight vote at last year's meetings, the conference decided to stick with an eight-game ACC slate. The nine-game option, which would ensure that schools face every conference opponent within a three-year span but would also limit the options for high-profile non-conference games, was not discussed this year. But Swofford said it could be revisited.

"I don't think that's gone away as a possibility," he said.

One option with an eight-game schedule, Swofford said, would be to shuffle schools so that traditional rivals would be placed in the same divisions. That would mean moving Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson to the Coastal Division, or sending Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to the Atlantic.

Of course, a move like that would bring about a different set of issues, such as competitive balance between the two divisions.

"When those rivalry games are within a division, that's easy," Swofford said. "When they're not, that's when you get into probably complicating the schedule some. So we'll continue to look at that and see if there are better ways to reach that common thread of playing each other as frequently as we can, because that's part of being a conference."

This is what that means:

Miami - BC
FSU - Syracuse
GT - VT
Clemson - Pitt
UNC - UVa
NCSU - WF
Duke - Louisville

interesting....maybe they could do this instead

Boston College
Syracuse
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
Duke
Wake Forest

Virginia
North Carolina State
North Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

this sacrifices unc-duke annually, but preserves unc-uva. if vt and uva agreed to meet as OOC on a permanent basis, it might be the cleanest solution. I don't know how much demand there would be for wf-ncsu, vt-gt or Miami-vt.

I'm certain that any solution will be unacceptable to somebody

Each ACC member school has its own agenda when it comes to scheduling and alignment questions. I don't know if the ACC is more or less united than other conferences are when it comes to these things. And it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. What is clear is that either some schools are going to have to give up something very important to them or the league will remain at an impasse.

What's also clear is that there is little agreement between individual schools and their fans as to what those important issues are. We can post our clever solutions until we are blue in the face, but our words will fall on deaf ears unless we as individuals are among the major donors to our schools.

No matter what changes the members make, it won't have much impact on how the league is perceived, football-wise. We have only a few really good teams, and the others aren't likely to get into that category anytime soon. If you only have 3-4 teams that can contend for a national championship, there aren't but so many ways you can shuffle the deck. We are what we are, and what we are probably going to be, unless we add a whole bunch of very good football programs. We aren't going to be able to control whatever process might make that happen.

(05-18-2015 03:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:37 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1767028

Practically every participant at the meetings expressed a desire for a change to the current football rotation, which sees several teams squaring off only once every six years. But the group was no closer to a solution when the meetings adjourned than when they began four days earlier.

"In the end, everybody may have to give up something," FSU athletics director Stan Wilcox told Warchant. "And we're trying to minimize what has to be given up. There are a couple options that we've looked at, and we've asked them to give us more options. So the conference is going to go back and work on different options."

Several ACC administrators and football coaches have voiced disappointment that their players will not get the opportunity to face every school in the conference before graduating.

"I would love for a guy to come to Clemson and be able to play everybody in the league at least once during his career," Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said.

Unless compromise is reached on one of three fronts, however, a solution could be difficult to come by. Either some traditional rivals will have to accept not facing each other every year, the conference will have to shuffle its divisions, or the league must move to a nine-game ACC schedule.

In a tight vote at last year's meetings, the conference decided to stick with an eight-game ACC slate. The nine-game option, which would ensure that schools face every conference opponent within a three-year span but would also limit the options for high-profile non-conference games, was not discussed this year. But Swofford said it could be revisited.

"I don't think that's gone away as a possibility," he said.

One option with an eight-game schedule, Swofford said, would be to shuffle schools so that traditional rivals would be placed in the same divisions. That would mean moving Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson to the Coastal Division, or sending Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to the Atlantic.

Of course, a move like that would bring about a different set of issues, such as competitive balance between the two divisions.

"When those rivalry games are within a division, that's easy," Swofford said. "When they're not, that's when you get into probably complicating the schedule some. So we'll continue to look at that and see if there are better ways to reach that common thread of playing each other as frequently as we can, because that's part of being a conference."

This is what that means:

Miami - BC
FSU - Syracuse
GT - VT
Clemson - Pitt
UNC - UVa
NCSU - WF
Duke - Louisville

interesting....maybe they could do this instead

Boston College
Syracuse
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
Duke
Wake Forest

Virginia
North Carolina State
North Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

this sacrifices unc-duke annually, but preserves unc-uva. if vt and uva agreed to meet as OOC on a permanent basis, it might be the cleanest solution. I don't know how much demand there would be for wf-ncsu, vt-gt or Miami-vt.

I'm certain that any solution will be unacceptable to somebody

Duke and UNC will not be sacrificed. WF and NC State would also have to be continued as they have played 105 times in the last 120 years.

(05-18-2015 03:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  Each ACC member school has its own agenda when it comes to scheduling and alignment questions. I don't know if the ACC is more or less united than other conferences are when it comes to these things. And it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. What is clear is that either some schools are going to have to give up something very important to them or the league will remain at an impasse.

What's also clear is that there is little agreement between individual schools and their fans as to what those important issues are. We can post our clever solutions until we are blue in the face, but our words will fall on deaf ears unless we as individuals are among the major donors to our schools.

No matter what changes the members make, it won't have much impact on how the league is perceived, football-wise. We have only a few really good teams, and the others aren't likely to get into that category anytime soon. If you only have 3-4 teams that can contend for a national championship, there aren't but so many ways you can shuffle the deck. We are what we are, and what we are probably going to be, unless we add a whole bunch of very good football programs. We aren't going to be able to control whatever process might make that happen.

The ACC's "problem" is Miami going into the toilet and staying there from the time they joined the league in 2004. That's a killer. FSU going into the toilet for a half a decade during that same period is the second "problem". The third "problem" is that VT has been snakebitten at bowl time dropping three BCS games they should have won and now Beemer is long in the tooth.

If FSU, Miami, Clemson, and VT are where they should be, the league is fine for football. If two or more are sick we have a problem. The B10 is just a 4-5 football team league - Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, and Wisky. Nebraska has been trending down for a decade. PSU may or may not fully recover.

Maybe they could keep crossover like indiana-purdue.

(05-18-2015 03:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 03:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  Each ACC member school has its own agenda when it comes to scheduling and alignment questions. I don't know if the ACC is more or less united than other conferences are when it comes to these things. And it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. What is clear is that either some schools are going to have to give up something very important to them or the league will remain at an impasse.

What's also clear is that there is little agreement between individual schools and their fans as to what those important issues are. We can post our clever solutions until we are blue in the face, but our words will fall on deaf ears unless we as individuals are among the major donors to our schools.

No matter what changes the members make, it won't have much impact on how the league is perceived, football-wise. We have only a few really good teams, and the others aren't likely to get into that category anytime soon. If you only have 3-4 teams that can contend for a national championship, there aren't but so many ways you can shuffle the deck. We are what we are, and what we are probably going to be, unless we add a whole bunch of very good football programs. We aren't going to be able to control whatever process might make that happen.

The ACC's "problem" is Miami going into the toilet and staying there from the time they joined the league in 2004. That's a killer. FSU going into the toilet for a half a decade during that same period is the second "problem". The third "problem" is that VT has been snakebitten at bowl time dropping three BCS games they should have won and now Beemer is long in the tooth.

If FSU, Miami, Clemson, and VT are where they should be, the league is fine for football. If two or more are sick we have a problem. The B10 is just a 4-5 football team league - Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, and Wisky. Nebraska has been trending down for a decade. PSU may or may not fully recover.

The problem is somebody is always sick...that's everyone, not just the ACC. Hell, Tennessee has been down forever in the SEC, and Florida for most of the last few years. Nobody ever has all their pieces "where they should be."

If the ACC wants to separate itself from the PAC and B1G and Big 12, which it needs more than four schools that play football. If the ACC has six schools that are capable of playing big boy football on a regular basis, then you could see the ACC in a lot better shape.

So take that list...add Louisville most likely...then you need one more. Hell, maybe it's Duke. But we've got schools that have enough athletes in their area, we need someone else to step up. Maybe GT.

Then I think you've got something.

You also need different schools to jump up and make some noise for stretches like the Big 12 has. One way or another, they seem to always have one or two schools pop up and have a big-time season toward the tops of the polls, going back to Kansas and Missouri doing it. But Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma state have all made runs in recent years.

The ACC virtually NEVER gets that. Not a single ACC team outside of FSU, with some slight possible exceptions for a couple of those VT teams, has been nationally discussed as a late season national title contender in the last 30 years. That's not ok, and that can't be blamed on FSU or North Carolina or any one team.

That's not to say that the ACC hasn't had some really, really good teams...but between choking games they should win, scheduling tough games early in the year, just bad luck...it never is in the hunt for titles if it's not FSU.

It can be done. The ACC isn't that far away.

But it anyone thinking that what we've had is a-ok isn't going to get us there either.

(05-18-2015 02:53 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  None of that matters, with 9 conference games the TV money will increase substantially. Follow the money and you will get your answer every time. 1 game increase times 14 schools adds lots of $$$$$$$$$.

It didn't increase substantially when we did it last time so what makes you think it's going to do it this time?

(05-18-2015 12:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:39 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If you follow the money, we will go to 9 conference games with the current setup plus 1 additional crossover game. That will allow each school to rotate every 3 years.

That takes you back to the 7-home-games problem. In the case of Louisville, if they want 7 home games then the ONLY P5 non-conference teams you will EVER play are Kentucky and Notre Dame (and the years ND is a road game you only get 6 home games). No more Chick-Fil-A vs. Auburn. That's why FSU, GT, Clemson and U of L are (and should be) dead set AGAINST 9 conference games no matter what (UNLESS there is a rule mandating no more than 6 home games for EVERY team, which probably won't happen).

I've said this over and over. You are one of the few who gets it

Staying at 8 league games could help teams with a chance to compete for championships. But you have to take advantage of that. You use those OOC games to boost your SOS.

Unfortunately, this year, when FSU gets both Georgia Tech and Miami as its crossover opponents (what it's been asking for), it has a crummy OOC schedule. The result is an overall schedule that's one of the weakest in the league. Only Duke and NC State have a weaker OOC slate, and only those two plus UNC are weaker overall.

In those years that somebody besides FSU and Clemson steps up, the ACC has a chance to move up and challenge the Big Ten for 4th place out of the five power conferences. But that's the best we're going to do, and the Big Ten sets a pretty low bar. There are no permutations of the league schedule or divisions that will change that.

Yeah, but it could at least give an opportunity for the top to strengthen a bit more and maybe help keep pace with zero risk. You already threw in towel.

The top half of the ACC is already second or third best. The bottom half is pretty bad, however. It's imperative that the bottom teams rise up - much like Duke has already done.

(05-18-2015 09:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The top half of the ACC is already second or third best. The bottom half is pretty bad, however. It's imperative that the bottom teams rise up - much like Duke has already done.

Not even close. The top half of the ACC, compared to the top half of the other P5's, puts us right where we are when we consider the conferences as a whole. In fact, that is true for every P5 conference. In order (using the three year average that stever prefers), the SEC is still first, followed by the PAC 12, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. If you look at the past five years, the Big 12 and PAC 12 switch places.

It is true that Duke has risen up. How long they will stay up is anybody's guess. In the past 40 years, Duke has had three brief periods in which they were not downright awful. This is one of them. Thanks to two decent seasons in a row, Duke has climbed from the absolute cellar among the P5 schools to a relatively lofty #46 out of 65.

EDIT: I misspoke. In 2011, Indiana was worse.