(08-02-2015 02:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

These aren't the conferences of yesteryear. Conferences have become leagues due to the bloated size. Fans don't care about some of these match-ups that their team is regulated to, all the while their team is missing a game the fans care about that could earn capital and much more for the fans too!

College football shouldn't be regulated to weird divisions, all the while missing the opportunity to capitalize on great games!

Agreed. My issue was with those who want 4 permanent rivals instead of 3... only a few teams want it, but they want to impose that requirement on the rest of the conference. Three annual rivals should be sufficient - that was my point. If you want the ACC to make a special effort to schedule the NC schools against each other, I don't mind that at all - just don't make everyone else do it that way!

(08-02-2015 06:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How about having 4 set rivals & 4 simi rivals that you play 2 every other year. So that's 6 games then rotate the rest of the conference in the other 2 games.

I like that even better but that's too far out of the box thinking for the ACC leaders.

(08-02-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 06:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How about having 4 set rivals & 4 simi rivals that you play 2 every other year. So that's 6 games then rotate the rest of the conference in the other 2 games.

I like that even better but that's too far out of the box thinking for the ACC leaders.

It is a good move...it is a compromise....you will never see it.


Non football schools will force the few football schools to do something the non football schools want.

It is nuts....much like this conference.


This conference is just a basketball conference that doesn't care about football.

I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

(08-03-2015 08:01 AM)nole Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 06:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How about having 4 set rivals & 4 simi rivals that you play 2 every other year. So that's 6 games then rotate the rest of the conference in the other 2 games.

I like that even better but that's too far out of the box thinking for the ACC leaders.

It is a good move...it is a compromise....you will never see it.


Non football schools will force the few football schools to do something the non football schools want.

It is nuts....much like this conference.


This conference is just a basketball conference that doesn't care about football.

Your last statement is stupid enough that you could be an SEC fan.

(08-02-2015 08:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 02:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

These aren't the conferences of yesteryear. Conferences have become leagues due to the bloated size. Fans don't care about some of these match-ups that their team is regulated to, all the while their team is missing a game the fans care about that could earn capital and much more for the fans too!

College football shouldn't be regulated to weird divisions, all the while missing the opportunity to capitalize on great games!

Agreed. My issue was with those who want 4 permanent rivals instead of 3... only a few teams want it, but they want to impose that requirement on the rest of the conference. Three annual rivals should be sufficient - that was my point. If you want the ACC to make a special effort to schedule the NC schools against each other, I don't mind that at all - just don't make everyone else do it that way!

UNC's 1st football game was against Wake Forest in 1886. To expand the ACC to 12, move was made exclusively for football, UNC had to give up Wake as an annual rival in football and a Home-Away rival in basketball. Maryland and GT led the demand that the 4 NC schools not be in the same division, and FSU agreed. So it was done. The NC schools were forever split.

Now that we are used to not playing Wake annually, we won't demand to get the game back.

(08-01-2015 03:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

2. Stop it with the 3 divisions - dumbest thing I've ever heard. Big XII is probably still laughing at ACC fans for running with that crazy comment by their commissioner...

3.Stop it with the ideas about adding Mercer, Navy, UConn, ECU, USF or UCF. Chill on Cincinnati and WVU (those are "last resort" moves). Anyone who suggests a Big Ten or SEC team is moving to the ACC should get an immediate drug test!

4. If ESPN brokers a deal of Notre Dame and Texas to the ACC full-time and they don't take it, just go ahead and break up the conference, because that is the ONLY kind of move which will preserve it long-term in the new environment. UNC, Duke and UVa just aren't big enough.

Mark, I have to disagree with almost everything you just wrote. The one thing that you got right was your comment #1.
#2-three divisions would be just fine if the ACC stopped at 15 teams
#3-there are several scenarios that could have a SEC team moving to the ACC to make room for a required third team for the SEC in a westward expansion.
#3 The best chance for the ACC's continued success is to stick to our own knitting. We need to remain an east coast league all within the eastern time zone. We have enough population to make a good competitive living without adding travel issues with our own network.
#4 IF ESPN brokers a deal with Texas and the ACC hesitates or passes it will be because it's not a good deal for the teams in the ACC and it won't be the end of the world. We have a great conference with great teams that everybody else desires. If the teams that we have live up to their own standards we have as good a football conference as anyone in the country. Our basketball is superior to any other conference and baseball and Olympic sports do not take a backseat to anybody.
#4--Carolina is big enough, but we have already told the B1G and the SEC to keep their 30 pieces of silver, we have obligations and have made commitments to old and to new friends and we intend to keep them.

Your second #4 is spot on. The schools that matter to ACC stability have made it clear to both SEC and BT that we want no part. Losing anybody else - Maryland is an example - is no harm to the ACC. In fact, in Louisville we get better football history over the past 25 years, a larger football fan base, a better basketball history, a larger basketball fan base, better baseball history, a larger baseball fan base, and a much, much better and smarter AD.

It would not be the end of the world if we do not secure Texas. but Texas is the one school outside Eastern Time I would like to have.

(08-03-2015 10:40 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 08:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 02:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

These aren't the conferences of yesteryear. Conferences have become leagues due to the bloated size. Fans don't care about some of these match-ups that their team is regulated to, all the while their team is missing a game the fans care about that could earn capital and much more for the fans too!

College football shouldn't be regulated to weird divisions, all the while missing the opportunity to capitalize on great games!

Agreed. My issue was with those who want 4 permanent rivals instead of 3... only a few teams want it, but they want to impose that requirement on the rest of the conference. Three annual rivals should be sufficient - that was my point. If you want the ACC to make a special effort to schedule the NC schools against each other, I don't mind that at all - just don't make everyone else do it that way!

UNC's 1st football game was against Wake Forest in 1886. To expand the ACC to 12, move was made exclusively for football, UNC had to give up Wake as an annual rival in football and a Home-Away rival in basketball. Maryland and GT led the demand that the 4 NC schools not be in the same division, and FSU agreed. So it was done. The NC schools were forever split.

Now that we are used to not playing Wake annually, we won't demand to get the game back.

The Wake game seems to be more important to some than others, but it's obviously important enough to schedule them outside of the conference slate to satisfy the demand.

(08-03-2015 08:01 AM)nole Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 06:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How about having 4 set rivals & 4 simi rivals that you play 2 every other year. So that's 6 games then rotate the rest of the conference in the other 2 games.

I like that even better but that's too far out of the box thinking for the ACC leaders.

It is a good move...it is a compromise....you will never see it.


Non football schools will force the few football schools to do something the non football schools want.

It is nuts....much like this conference.


This conference is just a basketball conference that doesn't care about football.

If this conference is so terrible to you, why do you spend so much time on this board?

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

2014 Top Football Schools
Florida State 11-0
Georgia Tech 10-2
Clemson 9-3
Louisville 9-3
Duke 9-3
2014 Top Basketball Schools
Virginia 30-4
Duke 30-5
Notre Dame 32-6
Louisville 27-9
North Carolina 26-12
Miami 25-13
North Carolina State 22-14
2014 Top in both Football and Basketball Schools
Duke
Louisville

(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Fair point. You would lose a home game every other year but it would get Clemson and FSU to school every four years. For a school like Duke who only sees those schools every ten years, those home games would be very lucrative. If you spread out the top schools you would be able to package a schedule that sells more tickets. It would also create marquee games more often. That UofL Miami game last year did good for ESPN. They won't play again for years under the current format. While WF v Pitt doesn't move the ESPN needle, VT v FSU does. Miami v Clem does. Louisville v GT does.

(08-03-2015 01:35 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Fair point. You would lose a home game every other year but it would get Clemson and FSU to school every four years. For a school like Duke who only sees those schools every ten years, those home games would be very lucrative. If you spread out the top schools you would be able to package a schedule that sells more tickets. It would also create marquee games more often. That UofL Miami game last year did good for ESPN. They won't play again for years under the current format. While WF v Pitt doesn't move the ESPN needle, VT v FSU does. Miami v Clem does. Louisville v GT does.

So FIX the schedule... don't make a bad schedule one game longer!

(08-03-2015 01:35 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Fair point. You would lose a home game every other year but it would get Clemson and FSU to school every four years. For a school like Duke who only sees those schools every ten years, those home games would be very lucrative. If you spread out the top schools you would be able to package a schedule that sells more tickets. It would also create marquee games more often. That UofL Miami game last year did good for ESPN. They won't play again for years under the current format. While WF v Pitt doesn't move the ESPN needle, VT v FSU does. Miami v Clem does. Louisville v GT does.

I don't want to disparage Duke, but there isn't a whole lot of money in what a more frequent visit by Clemson of FSU would mean to them. They would profit a lot more if they were allowed to sell those schools one of their own home games instead.

When Alabama came to Durham a couple of years ago, the stands were pretty full, and most of them wore Crimson. A lot of those Bama fans bought season tickets to Duke because they were about as cheap as a single game in Tuscaloosa. I don't think they even bothered to try to sell the tickets for the other Duke games because demand for them on StubHub was so weak.

If the ACC were to change to an unbalanced schedule that had the better schools play each other more often and had them play the weaker schools less often, I would be OK with that. That would be a much better solution, IMO, than just adding a 9th game across the board.

(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Because there is no way that ND will go full member in football playing 9 games. And there is no way we go to 16 without ND. And going to 9 games with 14 members is insane if we would have to go back to 8 with 16 members.

The ACC does not need 9 league games. We play the most P5 teams OOC. We are not the SEC.

(08-03-2015 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 01:35 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Fair point. You would lose a home game every other year but it would get Clemson and FSU to school every four years. For a school like Duke who only sees those schools every ten years, those home games would be very lucrative. If you spread out the top schools you would be able to package a schedule that sells more tickets. It would also create marquee games more often. That UofL Miami game last year did good for ESPN. They won't play again for years under the current format. While WF v Pitt doesn't move the ESPN needle, VT v FSU does. Miami v Clem does. Louisville v GT does.

I don't want to disparage Duke, but there isn't a whole lot of money in what a more frequent visit by Clemson of FSU would mean to them. They would profit a lot more if they were allowed to sell those schools one of their own home games instead.

Correct. I have said for years that Dook football can best help itself and thus the ACC by barnstorming - by having 1 home game every year or 2nd year played at a neutral site vs. a top name brand. Dook the Home team vs. ND at Yankee Stadium would be an example.

Require 8 conference games and 2 P5 games (same 10 total as B1G).
Allow 1 of those extra P5 games to be against an ACC team if desired.
Count it in the ACC standings if desired - I don't think it will matter much unless FSU, Clemson, GT or VT start doing it, which isn't likely.
Set a date to ban FCS games, but give plenty of advance notice (for the sake of the FCS teams).

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/0...games.html

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.

The UofL could still choose to play School for the blind while playing 9 ACC games.

Here is the reality for Cards fans: playing UK means you already have 9 set games per year. That gives you only 3 per year for different OOC match ups. ND is on your schedule once. If you play 9 ACC games, you have very little leeway to vary your OOC foes, because that means 10 set games per year. You probably then most years would want to play 2 non-P5 league teams to finish off the schedule so it is not insanely difficult.

Right now, everybody in the ACC but MooU makes a serious effort to schedule 2 good OOC games per year. The reality is that if we play 9 ACC games, UNC will not dump one of its Nobody OOC foes - it will dump SoCar or Illinois. I would rather play the P5 OOC game.

(08-03-2015 04:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Require 8 conference games and 2 P5 games (same 10 total as B1G).
Allow 1 of those extra P5 games to be against an ACC team if desired.
Count it in the ACC standings if desired - I don't think it will matter much unless FSU, Clemson, GT or VT start doing it, which isn't likely.
Set a date to ban FCS games, but give plenty of advance notice (for the sake of the FCS teams).

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/0...games.html

I agree,.except in banning FCS teams. Those schools make their entire football budget from 1 game at a P5 school. If you play 2 P5s, playing 1 FCS should count.