As time passes it will be easier to see the benefits of one plan over the other. It's obvious that the conference as a whole was not ready to choose one over the other without ruffling some feathers. So the best path was to put things on hold and compromise with schools and media partners with a slight modification of the status quo (requiring at least one P5 opponent).
When the time is right and as the network launch date nears the question can be revisited easily without having to mend fences first.

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

I'm with you. TV money is great but tons of decisions are made for students, alumni, players, etc

(10-05-2016 07:17 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

That's what its about.

And those opposed are doing it because;
1) They want money from home games; and
2) They want easy wins that are boring games for their fans

...and Clemson is required to play South Carolina State, for instance, by its state legislature...

and possibly other reasons that outweigh whatever incremental payment an extra conference game may garner?

Actually that's not true. Although it is an internal policy both state schools have adopted. But there are exceptions, for instance SC plays Western Carolina, Umass, and ECU this year with no in state FCS school

(10-05-2016 07:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:17 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

That's what its about.

And those opposed are doing it because;
1) They want money from home games; and
2) They want easy wins that are boring games for their fans

...and Clemson is required to play South Carolina State, for instance, by its state legislature...

and possibly other reasons that outweigh whatever incremental payment an extra conference game may garner?

Actually that's not true. Although it is an internal policy both state schools have adopted. But there are exceptions, for instance SC plays Western Carolina, Umass, and ECU this year with no in state FCS school

This just goes to show that there are some folks that post information that they might believe to be true, but may not be true. The information re: Clemson and South Carolina being required to play an in state school every year appears to fit this situation.

it'll be interesting to see if it actually happens. If it doesn't, we can pretty much infer that the $$$ was too much to leave.

I would have to think that the 6 ones who wanted the 9+1 will remain the same. The question will be can 2 others be swayed?

My belief is that there ought to be attractive options to ESPN beyond a straight 8+2 or 9+1 commitment. If schools back off of their scheduling of FCS opponents, replace their scheduling of weaker MAC and SBC schools with better quality AAC and MWC schools, schedule 2 P5 opponents when possible, etc., they should be able to provide significant improvement in the matchups available to the ACCN.

(10-05-2016 08:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it'll be interesting to see if it actually happens. If it doesn't, we can pretty much infer that the $$$ was too much to leave.

I would have to think that the 6 ones who wanted the 9+1 will remain the same. The question will be can 2 others be swayed?

Swayed to what?
What in the world are you talking about?

(10-05-2016 09:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 08:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it'll be interesting to see if it actually happens. If it doesn't, we can pretty much infer that the $$$ was too much to leave.

I would have to think that the 6 ones who wanted the 9+1 will remain the same. The question will be can 2 others be swayed?

Swayed to what?
What in the world are you talking about?

Can 2 of the ones who voted before for the 8+1 be swayed to go to the 9+1. With the $$$ inducement.

Acc and sec should do a challenge Labor Day weekend, count the 4 rival games in the deal. I'd try to get nd to play 4 acc and 1 sec school, espn money would need to be in play, so they are part of the deal.

(10-05-2016 09:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Acc and sec should do a challenge Labor Day weekend, count the 4 rival games in the deal. I'd try to get nd to play 4 acc and 1 sec school, espn money would need to be in play, so they are part of the deal.

problem with that is that you could have some interesting rivalries each year such as:

UGA VS GT
UF VS FSU
UK VS UL
USC VS CU
UT VS VT
VU VS WF

But what about the other half of the matches?

Alabama vs Pitt?

Auburn vs UNC?

MSU vs Duke?

A&M vs Miami?

Arkansas vs Syracuse?

almost none of those are great TV games and I doubt those ACC/SEC teams want to be locked into them permanently.

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

Apparently. I guarantee that every realignment decision revolves around it. Not academics. Not geography. Not anything but TV money.

And anyone who thinks the networks aren't deeply involved in shaping the decisions is just looking the other way.

Swafford you dummy, I've given you the correct solution on here before - for free!

The only reason there's a split in your membership on this is because some have yearly rivalry games with the SEC.

DUH! The solution is to set-up a cross-over with the SEC for every member. Huge marketing opportunity (think of $$$ for someone to title sponsor the entire series). Then when you add in the Notre Dame games, that gives you your 8+2 (the other 9 members not playing Notre Dame that year will just have to find another P5 (+ Navy/Army) - not that big of a deal).


WakeForestRanger #10,

But all you have to do is divide that figure by the number of games. It won't be 100% accurate, but will be close enough for a message board discussion on how much money is being left on the table.

(10-05-2016 07:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 11:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

Maybe not for Notre Dame because their combined football ticket revenue plus donations is likely top-10 in CFB. Programs like Wake, BC, Purdue, Northwestern, Wazzu, or Vandy are much more dependent on TV $ as a percentage of their annual athletic budget.

Maybe those schools you mentioned have other reasons/motives for having an eight game schedule that outweighs whatever extra TV money a nine game conference schedule may bring?

Wake Forest and BC both favored 9 conference games, per http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

(10-05-2016 10:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 11:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the big question of course is how much it's going to cost the ACC not going to the 8+2 or 9+1.

Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

Maybe not for Notre Dame because their combined football ticket revenue plus donations is likely top-10 in CFB. Programs like Wake, BC, Purdue, Northwestern, Wazzu, or Vandy are much more dependent on TV $ as a percentage of their annual athletic budget.

Maybe those schools you mentioned have other reasons/motives for having an eight game schedule that outweighs whatever extra TV money a nine game conference schedule may bring?

Wake Forest and BC both favored 9 conference games, per http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

Does anybody know the vote breakdown by school? I assume the big FB schools prefer 8, and the lesser guys prefer 9?

(10-05-2016 10:20 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 10:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 11:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Does the sensibility of every decision in college football have to revolve around the TV networks and how much they may pay for something?

Maybe not for Notre Dame because their combined football ticket revenue plus donations is likely top-10 in CFB. Programs like Wake, BC, Purdue, Northwestern, Wazzu, or Vandy are much more dependent on TV $ as a percentage of their annual athletic budget.

Maybe those schools you mentioned have other reasons/motives for having an eight game schedule that outweighs whatever extra TV money a nine game conference schedule may bring?

Wake Forest and BC both favored 9 conference games, per http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

Does anybody know the vote breakdown by school? I assume the big FB schools prefer 8, and the lesser guys prefer 9?

No secret that Florida State, Clemson and Louisville strongly prefer 8 Conference Games

(10-05-2016 09:13 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My belief is that there ought to be attractive options to ESPN beyond a straight 8+2 or 9+1 commitment. If schools back off of their scheduling of FCS opponents, replace their scheduling of weaker MAC and SBC schools with better quality AAC and MWC schools, schedule 2 P5 opponents when possible, etc., they should be able to provide significant improvement in the matchups available to the ACCN.

Precisely. Is Louisville at Purdue a better game than Louisville at Houston?

What about Boston College v. UConn compared to Boston College at Washington St.?

Or Virginia Tech v. ECU compared to Virginia Tech v. Minnesota?

Or Syracuse v. South Florida compared to Syracuse v. Kansas?

ESPN would probably prefer those ACC v. AAC matchups over all-P5 matchups listed.

I just looked this up yesterday: with the Notre Dame affiliation and the ACC-SEC rivalry games, 7 of the current ACC members generally play 2 P5 OOC each year already.

So, we're talking about 7-8 games per season, mostly involving mid to lower level P5 schools. Not a big deal.

(10-05-2016 10:22 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 10:20 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Does anybody know the vote breakdown by school? I assume the big FB schools prefer 8, and the lesser guys prefer 9?

No secret that Florida State, Clemson and Louisville strongly prefer 8 Conference Games

From the Monday article, before the status-quo compromise was proposed:

Quote:Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Georgia Tech and Duke appear to staunchly prefer 8+2.

Quote:Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina State, Wake Forest and Boston College are likely committed to 9+1.

Quote:That leaves Virginia Tech’s Babcock, Pitt’s Scott Barnes and Syracuse’s John Wildhack, the latter two new to the conference since the 2014 vote. None has publicly revealed a preference, but Babcock and Barnes seem to be leaning toward 9+1

(10-05-2016 10:32 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 09:13 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My belief is that there ought to be attractive options to ESPN beyond a straight 8+2 or 9+1 commitment. If schools back off of their scheduling of FCS opponents, replace their scheduling of weaker MAC and SBC schools with better quality AAC and MWC schools, schedule 2 P5 opponents when possible, etc., they should be able to provide significant improvement in the matchups available to the ACCN.

Precisely. Is Louisville at Purdue a better game than Louisville at Houston?

What about Boston College v. UConn compared to Boston College at Washington St.?

Or Virginia Tech v. ECU compared to Virginia Tech v. Minnesota?

Or Syracuse v. South Florida compared to Syracuse v. Kansas?

ESPN would probably prefer those ACC v. AAC matchups over all-P5 matchups listed.

What we don't know is if ESPN agrees with this. My gut tells me that if ESPN would be agreeable to two P5 games, with one of them having the flexibility to use AAC, the service academies, Boise St., etc., then 8+2 would more than likely pass. However, perhaps it is ESPN that is sticking to it being P5/ND/BYU only for both OOC requirements, and therefore causing this to potentially end with a status quo vote of 8+1. I guess we'll find out the results of the vote soon, and maybe we'll get more background info as articles come out after the fact with quotes from "sources familiar with the situation."

Or another way to tackle it:

Make it so Notre Dame counts as a conference game for those preferring 9 ACC games, but does not count as a conference game for those preferring 8 ACC games.