(10-04-2016 09:02 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Random thought: If the ACC went to 9+1, why not count games versus Notre Dame as conference games? I know there are an odd number of games many years, but perhaps two to four ND games a year could count as conference games. That would relieve the burden on schools with regular P5 rivals from the conference's Notre Dame commitment.

Looking at the chart above, perhaps in 2020, Clemson and GT could count ND as a conference game, in 2021, GT and VT, and in 2023, Duke and Clemson could.

No. 1000 x No!

(10-04-2016 11:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 09:02 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Random thought: If the ACC went to 9+1, why not count games versus Notre Dame as conference games? I know there are an odd number of games many years, but perhaps two to four ND games a year could count as conference games. That would relieve the burden on schools with regular P5 rivals from the conference's Notre Dame commitment.

Looking at the chart above, perhaps in 2020, Clemson and GT could count ND as a conference game, in 2021, GT and VT, and in 2023, Duke and Clemson could.

No. 1000 x No!

+1

(10-03-2016 03:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 11:38 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  Just a question about some of the other responses in this thread. Since i do not know ACC history. Is there some friction between the North Carolina schools and Clemson?

Clemson was at odds with the majority of the Southern Confernece when VT's president instiututed a bowl ban on Clemson and MD in the early 50's due in part to a huge cheating scandal at William and Mary. MD pulled out with Clemson and Duke to form the ACC and SC was with them as well. MD and Duke wanted UNC and NC State and Duke, UNC, and NC State wanted Wake Forest. MD had already made arrangemetns to bring UVa (who left in 1936) into the ACC. Everything was hunky dory until Eddie Cameron and the folks at Duke realzied taht to stay on top in football (2 Rose Bowls, 2 Orange Bowls, 1 Sugar, and 1 Cotton plus 19 top 20 rankings in 25 years) would require them to recruit grossly substandard students.

While MD was declared national champions during the SoCon years, and Clemson is more recognized as the football school, it was Duke that was the SoCon football power until 1962 when the 800 SAT was passed and Duke football was mothballed for 50 years.

Clemson and SC felt betrayed by Duke and UNC on the matter. SC left the ACC in 1971 over that and Frank McGuire in 1971. Clemson almost left but stayed. Clemson football did not recover until the late 1970's. Danny Ford football at Clemson was SEC style football with SEC style management. Clemson got caught making cash payments. They accused NC State of turning them in but the NC State story is that we did not turn them in but we were asked about our knowledge of it. The conference socked Clemson with an extra year of probation over the NCAA and many at Clemson attribute that to UNC and Swofford, but in reality Swofford was too new to orchestrate that. That does not mean Cobey did not orchestrate that. UNC has always been good at getting someone else on probation.

Losing Danny Ford at Clemson was similar to NC State losing Jim Valvano - a god hounded out of town by outside forces.

Clemson's basketball teams have been on the receiving end of some interesting **** over the years but that would take it;s own thread. The conference took the baseball tournament from Clemson over the Confederate Flag and the Mustard Bar B Que guy in Columbia.

The reality though is that most of this is structural not personal. The little guy gets **** on, the weaker guy gets **** on, etc., etc. Clemson was a cultural outlier in the ACC from an academic standpoint for many years. It had a military component and was all male until the late 1960's iirc.

Many Clemson fans see Duke, UNC, and UVa as hypocrites and see NC State and WF as weak and subservient to those three.

The main issue with Clemson is that football is their thing and that to compete where they are located, they had to use SEC tactics that are kosher in the SEC, but looked down upon by some in the ACC.

For the most part, Clemson was in the right on many of these issues. Even their cheating was most honest and honorable than the insidious things related to fake classes.

That's my take - a lot of Clemson feel stabbed in the back and feel it was personal. I know they were stabbed from time to time, but I think it would have happened to anyone focusing on football at that time.

When you hear someone bitching from Clemson today, you are usually hearing a 50-75 year old male who is still mad over things that happened in the 1980's leading to the demise of Ford and the hiring of Ken Hatfield and Tommy Bowden.

I guess that explains a lot about why there is some on going bickering between the North Carolina schools and Clemson. I can kind of see as a new comer to the conference that some of the outlying schools outside of North Carolina would probably get frustrated sometimes because the North Carolina schools might have views different from the others.

From what i have been able to piece together from reading on the internet it looks like:
5 schools want to stay at 8+2
6 schools want to change to 9+1
I think we can all guess who they are

The three undecideds are:
VT, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

If it is tied 7-7 then it stays at 8+2.

It should be interesting.
I know at Syracuse, they want to re-open a permanent series with Penn State. I think they also want to have something with Rutgers and Maryland on a semi-permanent basis. The new AD at Syracuse was the No. 2 at ESPN so he is connected so I doubt he votes for 9+1 because he comes from the era of Syracuse football when there were consistent games with other eastern football powers. Yes, i know Rutgers is not an eastern football power but New Jersey is the primary recruiting region for Syracuse.

(10-03-2016 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am beginning to lean in the direction of a compromise of sorts. Retain the 8 game schedule, but make two changes: do away with the permanent crossover rivals, and permit scheduling ACC teams as OOC P5 opponents.

By eliminating the permanent crossovers, you increase the frequency that you meet six of the seven non-division teams from once in six years to (almost) once every three years. That's a good thing, IMO, for league solidarity.

The downside is that the one team you want to play most is reduced from every year to once every three years. But that is mitigated by having the ability to make that rival an OOC game in the two years you aren't scheduled to play them (with Notre Dame being on the schedule in the third year).

Now, if you are Clemson, you are unhappy with this arrangement. But then, if you are Clemson, you are always unhappy anyway, so I'm not sure how much the league should be concerned about that. The Tigers would, in all likelihood, have all their OOC P5 games fixed in this arrangement. Every year, they would have South Carolina as one of them, and Ga Tech (twice) and Notre Dame for the other. That all but precludes future games against Georgia and Auburn, unless the NCAA were to make all FBS/FCS games a permitted pre-season exhibition.

Which brings me to my main point. Increasingly, that pre-season exhibition change would appear to be in the interest of all the P5 conferences for one reason or another. The P5 (and ESPN) should be pushing for this sooner rather than later, and I will be surprised if it doesn't happen within two years at the latest. It makes too much sense to do it.

If it were to happen, every ACC school could get what they want. The only losers would be those of us who need to have something to debate on message boards like this one. What would we talk about?

I think that there will be a compromise, with 8+2 winning but ACC teams counting as out of conference games as needed for scheduling reasons. I am not sure about the elimination of the rivals going over with the North Carolina schools and Virginia. Just a guess but I get the impression that the North Carolina schools really like playing each other.

(10-04-2016 12:30 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  From what i have been able to piece together from reading on the internet it looks like:
5 schools want to stay at 8+2
6 schools want to change to 9+1
I think we can all guess who they are

The three undecideds are:
VT, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

If it is tied 7-7 then it stays at 8+2.

It should be interesting.
I know at Syracuse, they want to re-open a permanent series with Penn State. I think they also want to have something with Rutgers and Maryland on a semi-permanent basis. The new AD at Syracuse was the No. 2 at ESPN so he is connected so I doubt he votes for 9+1 because he comes from the era of Syracuse football when there were consistent games with other eastern football powers. Yes, i know Rutgers is not an eastern football power but New Jersey is the primary recruiting region for Syracuse.

I'd kill for PSU and WVU either yearly or every other year.

(10-04-2016 12:36 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am beginning to lean in the direction of a compromise of sorts. Retain the 8 game schedule, but make two changes: do away with the permanent crossover rivals, and permit scheduling ACC teams as OOC P5 opponents.

By eliminating the permanent crossovers, you increase the frequency that you meet six of the seven non-division teams from once in six years to (almost) once every three years. That's a good thing, IMO, for league solidarity.

The downside is that the one team you want to play most is reduced from every year to once every three years. But that is mitigated by having the ability to make that rival an OOC game in the two years you aren't scheduled to play them (with Notre Dame being on the schedule in the third year).

Now, if you are Clemson, you are unhappy with this arrangement. But then, if you are Clemson, you are always unhappy anyway, so I'm not sure how much the league should be concerned about that. The Tigers would, in all likelihood, have all their OOC P5 games fixed in this arrangement. Every year, they would have South Carolina as one of them, and Ga Tech (twice) and Notre Dame for the other. That all but precludes future games against Georgia and Auburn, unless the NCAA were to make all FBS/FCS games a permitted pre-season exhibition.

Which brings me to my main point. Increasingly, that pre-season exhibition change would appear to be in the interest of all the P5 conferences for one reason or another. The P5 (and ESPN) should be pushing for this sooner rather than later, and I will be surprised if it doesn't happen within two years at the latest. It makes too much sense to do it.

If it were to happen, every ACC school could get what they want. The only losers would be those of us who need to have something to debate on message boards like this one. What would we talk about?

I think that there will be a compromise, with 8+2 winning but ACC teams counting as out of conference games as needed for scheduling reasons. I am not sure about the elimination of the rivals going over with the North Carolina schools and Virginia. Just a guess but I get the impression that the North Carolina schools really like playing each other.

A major reason for my suggestion is that it would allow all four NC schools to play each other every year. If they all vote for 8+2, it's a done deal.

If Duke would agree to a multi-year series with NC State ooc, that might be all it takes...

Well now...

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

Status quo is back on the table?

Good news for those of us that are fans of eight conference games.

I'd love to see the league still try to schedule as if there were a 8+2 requirement. Only now, you can be a little more flexible with the second OOC to include the service academies, AAC, Boise State, etc., or even a cross division conference foe if you must. Plus, if you just aren't able to get a second "P5" game, then there is no foul.

A lot of the ACC schools already have two P5 games scheduled for future years, so just keep it up and keep adding more.

(10-04-2016 10:27 PM)Schema Wrote:  Good news for those of us that are fans of eight conference games.

I'd love to see the league still try to schedule as if there were a 8+2 requirement. Only now, you can be a little more flexible with the second OOC to include the service academies, AAC, Boise State, etc., or even a cross division conference foe if you must. Plus, if you just aren't able to get a second "P5" game, then there is no foul.

A lot of the ACC schools already have two P5 games scheduled for future years, so just keep it up and keep adding more.

It's really 8-2 as described back in August:

lumberpack4 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,966
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 76
Warning Level: 0%
I Root For: ACC
Location:

Post: #24
RE: ACC Network - FB has two options per ESPN
I doubt 9-1 is going to pass because no one in the Coastal other than UVa and UNC want more games with FSU and Clemson. UVa and UNC want it for Clemson because Clemson will fill their excess capacity. GT and Miami already have annual games with one of them, and Pitt, Duke, and VT benefit from missing them as much as possible.

The disparity at the top between the Atlantic and Coastal goes hand in hand with this particular issue. If you already have games with Clemson and FSU how many more games do you need against top 15-25 schools? Or put another way, how many games a year do you need where you are the undisputed underdog? If you are in the Atlantic, you start with 2. You will be the dog against ND.

It would not surprise me to see 8-2 pass and from time to time finding that some ACC schools don't have 2 P-5's, and instead have a 1 P-5, and an AAC school, or BYU, or a Mountain West school. Let's face it, who really wants to watch UNC, NC State, WF, Duke, or UVa play Kansas, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, or Vandy, that would not otherwise watch UNC, NC State, WF, Duke, or UVa play Navy, Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, San Diego State, Cincy, UConn, etc?

I suspect that the ESPN language might not require a P-5, but two non-dogs of a quality they approve - meaning they can sell it. Teel doesn't put quotations around his summary of the two options and like all contractual things the devil is in the details.

I just can't see ESPN favoring an ACC game against another P-5 bottom feeder over Navy, or some other schools that for whatever reason have more appeal, especially in certain time slots.

(10-04-2016 09:15 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  Well now...

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

Oh great, to appease FSU, Clemson, Louisville and GT, what did Swofford have to give up to ESPN? Or were the ratings from UL vs Clemson and the ratings for the FSU vs UL games this season enough to convince ESPN that the status quo scheduling is good enough for a dedicated sports channel?

(10-04-2016 10:27 PM)Schema Wrote:  I'd love to see the league still try to schedule as if there were a 8+2 requirement.

Why turn down the extra money from ESPN for implementing an 8+2 requirement then turn around and schedule like that anyway basically for free?

(10-04-2016 10:44 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:27 PM)Schema Wrote:  I'd love to see the league still try to schedule as if there were a 8+2 requirement.

Why turn down the extra money from ESPN for implementing an 8+2 requirement then turn around and schedule like that anyway basically for free?

First of all, I don't think they should turn it down. I think they should agree to 8+2. However, it sounds like the schools that are afraid of being able to schedule that aggressively are going to keep it at status quo. If it stays, 8+1, I think the teams that are already scheduling two P5 OOC opponents in future years will continue to do so. I'd just like to see more schools do it also.

(10-04-2016 11:25 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:44 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:27 PM)Schema Wrote:  I'd love to see the league still try to schedule as if there were a 8+2 requirement.

Why turn down the extra money from ESPN for implementing an 8+2 requirement then turn around and schedule like that anyway basically for free?

First of all, I don't think they should turn it down. I think they should agree to 8+2. However, it sounds like the schools that are afraid of being able to schedule that aggressively are going to keep it at status quo. If it stays, 8+1, I think the teams that are already scheduling two P5 OOC opponents in future years will continue to do so. I'd just like to see more schools do it also.

This is complete speculation on my part... Outside of the factor that changing to 8+2 would make things difficult for some to find 2 P5 opponents, I wonder if some athletic departments were hesitant to renege on scheduling agreements with G5 schools.

For example, VT has both ECU & ODU on the schedule almost every year until 2025 (2020 only has ECU and 2021 has neither). If the ACC voted for 8+2 or 9+1, one of those games likely goes away every year, since I doubt they give up the FCS games. Most athletic directors understand the difficulty of scheduling at G5 schools since the majority of them came up through the ranks that way - I think there's a small part of them that doesn't want to screw those teams by forcing them to find another game.

Honestly, I haven't decided how I feel about status quo. I don't think it's a great look to go against the wishes of the network partner, but in the end I think that ESPN will get enough inventory regardless to keep them happy.

At the very least, you can sell the ACC network to ECU fans...

(09-28-2016 11:24 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This being the ACC scheduling office -- how many byes will be handed out before playing GT to broker whatever deal is reached?

7, Plus GT will have 2 Thursday games, 3 Friday games and 3 Saturday @ noon games. In addition GT will have to use Citgo gas in the rambling wreck.

(10-04-2016 10:44 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 09:15 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  Well now...

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

Oh great, to appease FSU, Clemson, Louisville and GT, what did Swofford have to give up to ESPN? Or were the ratings from UL vs Clemson and the ratings for the FSU vs UL games this season enough to convince ESPN that the status quo scheduling is good enough for a dedicated sports channel?

I think putting six teams in the top 25, being featured on college game day three times in the first five weeks, and popping big ratings numbers probably should have everyone thinking long and hard about making any rash changes right now.

The idea of "more inventory" is kind of absurd on the face of it. Only the Big 10 has played more P5 games than the ACC over the last several years. Most schools try to play two P5 schools every year, and most of the ones that don't aren't that relevant to TV. No offense to NCSU or Wake, but is ESPN really pounding on tables because they have one and not two P5 OOC games?

And even the non-P5 schools we're playing are fairly prominent, BYU, Houston, ECU, Cincinnati, Army, Navy. It's hardly like we're scheduling directional Louisiana teams every Saturday.

We don't have a Baylor in this league, specifically trying to avoid P5 competition. This ultimatum is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

And the answer to not seeing everyone enough in conference is to eliminate the divisions. If ESPN and Swofford want to do something, they should go back to work on that.

I love the divisionless idea. It really solves the most problems & not just for the ACC.

Maybe 1 change to the status quo to appease ESPN, reduce the number of FCS games. Limit everyone to 1 FCS game every 2 or 3 years.

Divisionless is dead.
A question would be if Espn is laying out ACCN money estimates for the 3 scenarios?
What are the 'incentives' ?