I am a fairly new poster to the board but have been reading posts for some time. First let me say that I think the ACC is a great conference. We have great member institutions (including our future members Pitt & SU), the academic reputation is excellent, and athletics are top notch for everything except for football. Of course, this football issue is a big concern for Clemson and some other ACC schools. We (the ACC) have been and continue to fall further and further behind the SEC, the Big 12, and the BIG when it comes to football. And like it or not, football is the primary engine that drives college athletics (i.e. conference revenues). Yes, basketball is also important but it does not match the importance of football – you can debate this all you want but reality is truth (if basketball was as important, then the ACC’s TV contract would far exceed the SEC’s and we all know this to be far from reality). Unfortunately for Clemson, we are a football first school and so despite all that the ACC has to offer, if there was a better option available (such as the SEC), I would definitely be in favor of making a move. But as I said, reality is truth and I realistically do not see any forthcoming invites from the SEC (or even the Big 12). So, the only viable option I see is to try and improve the state of ACC football. With this in mind, here are my suggestions:
1. Replace John Swofford as ACC commissioner with someone not connected in any way to any existing or future ACC member institution. I cannot say with certainty whether or not Mr. Swofford has made biased decisions (I have my opinions but they are just my opinions). However, the perception that bias may exist based on his relationship with UNC is very real and undeniable. Therefore, I think it is in the best interest of the ACC to remove any possibility of bias or the perception that bias may exist.
2. I agree with Hokie Mark’s proposed North/South division alignment:
NORTH: BC, Syracuse, Maryland, Virgina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Miami
SOUTH: Duke, Wake, NC State, N Carolina, Clemson, Ga Tech, Florida St.
(paired in that order e.g. BC & Duke, ... UVa & UNC, VT & Clemson,... )
This will maximize the number of games between the bigger name football schools and still keep a relatively even competitive balance between the divisions. I believe that this will in turn help the ACC negotiate a more favorable contract since it will provide ESPN (or whoever) more “big name” games to offer. Let’s face it, Duke vs BC is not going to draw a large TV audience (no offense meant) whereas a CU vs VT or FSU vs Miami game is much more likely to do so. TV ratings (i.e. audiences) are ultimately what drive ESPN. The more of these type of games the ACC has to offer the better our bargaining position becomes.
3. Until if/when the ACC expands to 16, get rid of the 9 game conference schedule and go back to an 8 game schedule. This 9 game schedule definitely limits the flexibility and availability of scheduling OOC games. This is particularly true for Clemson, FSU, and GT who have to schedule an OOC every year with their in state SEC rival. FSU and to a lesser degree CU and GT are three of the “bigger name” schools and to my point above, the ACC should be working as hard as it can to get their “big name” schools involved in “big name” OOC games and should not be putting up barriers to these type of games. For example, Clemson is currently scheduled to play Oklahoma State in a home/away series in a few years – with a nine game schedule, it will be very unlikely that these games will happen. This will be a loss for Clemson and the ACC as these would probably be one of the marquee intra-conference games in the country.
4. Improve ACC scheduling so that CU, FSU, and GT catch a break the week before they play their in-state SEC rivals. The SEC always seems to take care of their teams (UF, UGA, and USC) before these rivalry games. There is absolutely nothing that would help the ACC’s football image more then for ACC teams to beat SEC teams. Of course, it is ultimately up to each team (CU, FSU, and GT) to win these games but a little help from the ACC would not hurt.
5. Work as hard as we can and do everything we can to entice Notre Dame to join our conference. Trust me when I say that I am far from being a ND fan but like it or not (deserved or not), they do have a “big name” reputation and would definitely help the ACC’s football image and bargaining position.
6. Of course, a concerted and committed effort from each school to improve their football programs would be invaluable. VT has really held up their end of the bargain as they have definitely been the most consistent performer. If FSU, Miami, and Clemson in particular and GT, Syracuse, and Pitt can raise the bar to past competitive levels, then the ACC would definitely be on par with the other conferences - and ACC football would actually be exciting to watch!
That’s it. Not anything really new but all of this is doable (except for maybe #5) and would help improve the overall state of ACC football both in perception and in reality.
If you've read much of my blog then you know I agree with most of this. However, there is one point I disagree with - #3.
First, I don't think 14 teams works with an 8 game schedule.
Second, while most fans accept the conventional wisdom which states that schools like Clemson make more money with 7 home games per year (even though 2 of them are against FCS and Mid-Major opponents), I'm convince this is not true. What is usually ignored is the selling price of tickets for those 2 "cup cake" games. I've done some financial analysis (using Clemson data for ticket sales and ticket prices) which shows that at best those 2 games do not equal one blockbuster like Auburn - in other words, you make more money playing 6 home games as long as 2 of them are big-name OOC (S. Carolina plus Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma St, etc.).
I will try to post my calculations tomorrow...
I'd like to express another opinion on 2 points:
1) 8 versus 9 game scheduling and 2) geographical divisions:
Obviously, this is a decision the existing schools have decided on and whatever is decided or ends up being decided is fine with me.
My guess is it has something to do with the ESPN renegotiation and perhaps a larger strategic sense of how best to position the ACC to take advantage of it's expanded footprint and perhaps a sense of how best to integrate the member schools as a true north-south coastal conference.
If each team plays 6 division games and one crossover game, then it will take 6 years to play a game against each team in the other division.
The PAC 12 and Big 12 are playing 9 conference games; the Big 10 with its PAC 12 scheduling agreement will be playing 9 games a year.
In my opinion, it really comes down to the question: does a school need to hire 2 "punching bag" teams to play at their home stadium each year or is one sufficient?
-----------------------------
Most of the schools will be playing at least one high profile OOC game each year: some examples:
SU is scheduled to play USC this year, PSU in 2013, ND in 2014-17, and PSU in 2020-21.
Pitt is scheduled to play ND in 2013-16 and PSU in 2017.
BC is scheduled to play USC in 2013-14 and ND in 2015-2019.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-east...orange.php
--------------------------
(04-22-2012 08:42 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]I am a fairly new poster to the board but have been reading posts for some time. First let me say that I think the ACC is a great conference. We have great member institutions (including our future members Pitt & SU), the academic reputation is excellent, and athletics are top notch for everything except for football. Of course, this football issue is a big concern for Clemson and some other ACC schools. We (the ACC) have been and continue to fall further and further behind the SEC, the Big 12, and the BIG when it comes to football. And like it or not, football is the primary engine that drives college athletics (i.e. conference revenues). Yes, basketball is also important but it does not match the importance of football – you can debate this all you want but reality is truth (if basketball was as important, then the ACC’s TV contract would far exceed the SEC’s and we all know this to be far from reality). Unfortunately for Clemson, we are a football first school and so despite all that the ACC has to offer, if there was a better option available (such as the SEC), I would definitely be in favor of making a move. But as I said, reality is truth and I realistically do not see any forthcoming invites from the SEC (or even the Big 12). So, the only viable option I see is to try and improve the state of ACC football. With this in mind, here are my suggestions:
1. Replace John Swofford as ACC commissioner with someone not connected in any way to any existing or future ACC member institution. I cannot say with certainty whether or not Mr. Swofford has made biased decisions (I have my opinions but they are just my opinions). However, the perception that bias may exist based on his relationship with UNC is very real and undeniable. Therefore, I think it is in the best interest of the ACC to remove any possibility of bias or the perception that bias may exist.
2. I agree with Hokie Mark’s proposed North/South division alignment:
NORTH: BC, Syracuse, Maryland, Virgina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Miami
SOUTH: Duke, Wake, NC State, N Carolina, Clemson, Ga Tech, Florida St.
(paired in that order e.g. BC & Duke, ... UVa & UNC, VT & Clemson,... )
This will maximize the number of games between the bigger name football schools and still keep a relatively even competitive balance between the divisions. I believe that this will in turn help the ACC negotiate a more favorable contract since it will provide ESPN (or whoever) more “big name” games to offer. Let’s face it, Duke vs BC is not going to draw a large TV audience (no offense meant) whereas a CU vs VT or FSU vs Miami game is much more likely to do so. TV ratings (i.e. audiences) are ultimately what drive ESPN. The more of these type of games the ACC has to offer the better our bargaining position becomes.
3. Until if/when the ACC expands to 16, get rid of the 9 game conference schedule and go back to an 8 game schedule. This 9 game schedule definitely limits the flexibility and availability of scheduling OOC games. This is particularly true for Clemson, FSU, and GT who have to schedule an OOC every year with their in state SEC rival. FSU and to a lesser degree CU and GT are three of the “bigger name” schools and to my point above, the ACC should be working as hard as it can to get their “big name” schools involved in “big name” OOC games and should not be putting up barriers to these type of games. For example, Clemson is currently scheduled to play Oklahoma State in a home/away series in a few years – with a nine game schedule, it will be very unlikely that these games will happen. This will be a loss for Clemson and the ACC as these would probably be one of the marquee intra-conference games in the country.
4. Improve ACC scheduling so that CU, FSU, and GT catch a break the week before they play their in-state SEC rivals. The SEC always seems to take care of their teams (UF, UGA, and USC) before these rivalry games. There is absolutely nothing that would help the ACC’s football image more then for ACC teams to beat SEC teams. Of course, it is ultimately up to each team (CU, FSU, and GT) to win these games but a little help from the ACC would not hurt.
5. Work as hard as we can and do everything we can to entice Notre Dame to join our conference. Trust me when I say that I am far from being a ND fan but like it or not (deserved or not), they do have a “big name” reputation and would definitely help the ACC’s football image and bargaining position.
6. Of course, a concerted and committed effort from each school to improve their football programs would be invaluable. VT has really held up their end of the bargain as they have definitely been the most consistent performer. If FSU, Miami, and Clemson in particular and GT, Syracuse, and Pitt can raise the bar to past competitive levels, then the ACC would definitely be on par with the other conferences - and ACC football would actually be exciting to watch!
That’s it. Not anything really new but all of this is doable (except for maybe #5) and would help improve the overall state of ACC football both in perception and in reality.
I really like the 9 game schedule. I do not like the north and south split because it takes the guaranteed games in NC every year.
You're still going to be playing in North Carolina most every year. If Clemson is your permanent cross division opponent then you will rotate FSU, GT and the four NC schools through your other two games with the South Division. Throw in the fact that the championship game is in Charlotte and I think it would be rare for VT to not play at least one game in the state of North Carolina.
If we go to 10 games I would be ok with being in the north
(04-23-2012 01:47 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If we go to 10 games I would be ok with being in the north
I'd be ok with a 10 week schedule only if the NCAA allowed us to go to a 14 week regular season.
(04-23-2012 01:49 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2012 01:47 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If we go to 10 games I would be ok with being in the north
I'd be ok with a 10 week schedule only if the NCAA allowed us to go to a 14 week regular season.
Yup! +1
With this north south split talk, I might support this:
BC Clemson
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD NCSU
UVA UNC
VT Wake
Miami. FSU
The cross divisional rivals are lined up
I'd rather have BC as a cross division rival and I'm sure Tv would prefer VT and Clemson as cross division rivals.
(04-23-2012 02:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]With this north south split talk, I might support this:
BC Clemson
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD NCSU
UVA UNC
VT Wake
Miami. FSU
The cross divisional rivals are lined up
I'm a little surprised that two VT fans would be OK with a North/South split where VT and UVA are in the north. Aside from the cultural differences of southern schools being put into a northern division, I thought there was vehement opposition to recreating a quasi-big east conference by putting Pitt, SU, BC, VT and Miami all in the same division.
(04-23-2012 03:08 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2012 02:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]With this north south split talk, I might support this:
BC Clemson
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD NCSU
UVA UNC
VT Wake
Miami. FSU
The cross divisional rivals are lined up
I'm a little surprised that two VT fans would be OK with a North/South split where VT and UVA are in the north. Aside from the cultural differences of southern schools being put into a northern division, I thought there was vehement opposition to recreating a quasi-big east conference by putting Pitt, SU, BC, VT and Miami all in the same division.
I think this makes more sense:
BC Wake
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD Clemson
UVA UNC
VT NCSU
Miami FSU
So let me get this straight...
(04-23-2012 03:02 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather have BC as a cross division rival and I'm sure Tv would prefer VT and Clemson as cross division rivals.
Wake wants BC
(04-23-2012 03:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: [ -> ]I think this makes more sense:
BC Wake
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD Clemson
UVA UNC
VT NCSU
Miami FSU
Maryland wants Clemson
(04-23-2012 02:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]With this north south split talk, I might support this:
BC Clemson
Cuse. Duke
Pitt. GT
UMD NCSU
UVA UNC
VT Wake
Miami. FSU
The cross divisional rivals are lined up
Ok, you lost me here 4X4hokies; geographically close, sure, but...
CONCLUSION: You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need....
We need it to be a team in NC. I don't want it to be Clemson because that puts us at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the north except Miami.
(04-22-2012 08:42 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]I am a fairly new poster to the board but have been reading posts for some time. First let me say that I think the ACC is a great conference. We have great member institutions (including our future members Pitt & SU), the academic reputation is excellent, and athletics are top notch for everything except for football. Of course, this football issue is a big concern for Clemson and some other ACC schools. We (the ACC) have been and continue to fall further and further behind the SEC, the Big 12, and the BIG when it comes to football. And like it or not, football is the primary engine that drives college athletics (i.e. conference revenues). Yes, basketball is also important but it does not match the importance of football – you can debate this all you want but reality is truth (if basketball was as important, then the ACC’s TV contract would far exceed the SEC’s and we all know this to be far from reality). Unfortunately for Clemson, we are a football first school and so despite all that the ACC has to offer, if there was a better option available (such as the SEC), I would definitely be in favor of making a move. But as I said, reality is truth and I realistically do not see any forthcoming invites from the SEC (or even the Big 12). So, the only viable option I see is to try and improve the state of ACC football. With this in mind, here are my suggestions:
1. Replace John Swofford as ACC commissioner with someone not connected in any way to any existing or future ACC member institution. I cannot say with certainty whether or not Mr. Swofford has made biased decisions (I have my opinions but they are just my opinions). However, the perception that bias may exist based on his relationship with UNC is very real and undeniable. Therefore, I think it is in the best interest of the ACC to remove any possibility of bias or the perception that bias may exist.
2. I agree with Hokie Mark’s proposed North/South division alignment:
NORTH: BC, Syracuse, Maryland, Virgina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Miami
SOUTH: Duke, Wake, NC State, N Carolina, Clemson, Ga Tech, Florida St.
(paired in that order e.g. BC & Duke, ... UVa & UNC, VT & Clemson,... )
This will maximize the number of games between the bigger name football schools and still keep a relatively even competitive balance between the divisions. I believe that this will in turn help the ACC negotiate a more favorable contract since it will provide ESPN (or whoever) more “big name” games to offer. Let’s face it, Duke vs BC is not going to draw a large TV audience (no offense meant) whereas a CU vs VT or FSU vs Miami game is much more likely to do so. TV ratings (i.e. audiences) are ultimately what drive ESPN. The more of these type of games the ACC has to offer the better our bargaining position becomes.
3. Until if/when the ACC expands to 16, get rid of the 9 game conference schedule and go back to an 8 game schedule. This 9 game schedule definitely limits the flexibility and availability of scheduling OOC games. This is particularly true for Clemson, FSU, and GT who have to schedule an OOC every year with their in state SEC rival. FSU and to a lesser degree CU and GT are three of the “bigger name” schools and to my point above, the ACC should be working as hard as it can to get their “big name” schools involved in “big name” OOC games and should not be putting up barriers to these type of games. For example, Clemson is currently scheduled to play Oklahoma State in a home/away series in a few years – with a nine game schedule, it will be very unlikely that these games will happen. This will be a loss for Clemson and the ACC as these would probably be one of the marquee intra-conference games in the country.
4. Improve ACC scheduling so that CU, FSU, and GT catch a break the week before they play their in-state SEC rivals. The SEC always seems to take care of their teams (UF, UGA, and USC) before these rivalry games. There is absolutely nothing that would help the ACC’s football image more then for ACC teams to beat SEC teams. Of course, it is ultimately up to each team (CU, FSU, and GT) to win these games but a little help from the ACC would not hurt.
5. Work as hard as we can and do everything we can to entice Notre Dame to join our conference. Trust me when I say that I am far from being a ND fan but like it or not (deserved or not), they do have a “big name” reputation and would definitely help the ACC’s football image and bargaining position.
6. Of course, a concerted and committed effort from each school to improve their football programs would be invaluable. VT has really held up their end of the bargain as they have definitely been the most consistent performer. If FSU, Miami, and Clemson in particular and GT, Syracuse, and Pitt can raise the bar to past competitive levels, then the ACC would definitely be on par with the other conferences - and ACC football would actually be exciting to watch!
That’s it. Not anything really new but all of this is doable (except for maybe #5) and would help improve the overall state of ACC football both in perception and in reality.
I agree with many of your points.
1. I suggest getting a new commissioner who is a bit more business oriented and familiar with developing new revenue streams (like Pac12 commissioner Larry Scott).
2. I like the North/South arrangement. Doesn't it add a little more to the games when you play someone you are familiar with.
3. I am wondering whether ESPN asked the ACC to go to 9 games as a condition of renegotiating the contract. Note the trend is to 9 conference games for the other BCS conferences as well.
4. Sure, why not.
5. I agree. Notre Dame is still a big name and getting them in the ACC would be great.
6. I agree, football is the big sport in terms of revenue generation. Syracuse used to be a football school up until around 2002 when a bad coach was hired (Greg Robinson). More football facilities are on its way and will be built at Syracuse before the start of the 2012 season.
That is a lot different than the new Big 12/ACC/Big East proposal you suggested on the conference realignment board, where you suggested the best ACC football programs take their football and basketball to the Big 12, the ACC then take select Big East members for football and basketball, and then the olympic sports all remain the same. I thought that was a lose, lose, lose situation for everyone, undermining the Big 12 grant of rights, the ACC would be a mess of 3 sets of associate programs basically, and the BE without its biggest eastern names for football -- this however is a realistic list of changes...
1) The commissioner, we had a poll recently rating Swofford and his numbers weren't as bad as I would have thought they would have been, surprisingly... however, I do think the next commissioner should be business/marketing/sports related and unaffiliated with any member of the conference professionally.
2) I like regional divisions, but I just don't like all the NC members clumped together in the travel fairness, unless their crossover teams are all outlying schools... and it doesn't bother me for football, as much as it would for sports with more games I guess...
3) I'm not sold on the 8 or 9 game schedules yet... I like 9, because you play the whole conference with faster turnover, but I don't like the lack of OCC games that 9 offers. I like that the Pac 12 and B1G were staying at 8 games, and adding a yearly inter-conference game between members, for a ninth game of the two leagues' tv contracts for a specific test period of future schedules. That allows a rotation of opponents to schedules to switch 'em up year to year. The ACC needs to follow the path that will bolster their television contract the most, because it is the pits.
4) I don't think conference scheduling is the issue of these big rivalries. Players should be able to get up for the big game, no matter if it was a competitive or cream puff contest the week before or whatever you're suggesting.
5) Notre Dame will fight tooth and nail to stay independent for football and I agree as much as people bash them for being nothing, the fact that they're bashing them, says otherwise, Notre Dame is a brand name that still demands attention -- they'd be a feather in any conference cap, but I just think they have the clout to stand alone in football - they have conferences like the Big East, who votes with them in BCS meetings, and the Pac 12 who adjusted their scheduling rules to allow late season OOC game exemptions for Notre Dame. They'll be the piper leading all the other conferences to vote for a wild card 4th member of the playoff, that gives a glimmer of hope to outsiders to potentially be in the mix.
6) Win BOWL GAMES... we can talk about raising performance and profile all we want, if we don't win our bowl games/playoffs/whatever that is what people remember! We need to deliver when given the spotlight and stage!