for now..

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/67...dule-today

Yes sir!

Duke is becoming a football school.

There are only two reasons to go to a 9 game conference slate in my opinion.

#1. Nine games are needed to provide enough inventory to launch the ACC network.
#2. Every other P5 conference is at nine games and the ACC is getting penalized for only playing eight.

(02-06-2014 11:12 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are only two reasons to go to a 9 game conference slate in my opinion.

#1. Nine games are needed to provide enough inventory to launch the ACC network.
#2. Every other P5 conference is at nine games and the ACC is getting penalized for only playing eight.

Agree. And it's not even just inventory...there will be fewer games available, because more than half the games that would be lost would be home games most likely.

It would have to be a quality of content issue, with ESPN making it a demand, rather than just a quantity of games issue. I mean, the SEC has enough inventory at 14 teams and 8 conference games. It's not a numbers issue.

And if ESPN is going to dictate that, they need to be prepared to pay handsomely in my opinion, because there are real drawbacks.

The elimination of divisions is a much better way to increase the quality of content, while still allowing all the benefits of the 8-game schedule.

(02-06-2014 11:21 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  The elimination of divisions is a much better way to increase the quality of content, while still allowing all the benefits of the 8-game schedule.

Completely agree!
FlossY out...

Cutcliffe is exactly right. Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

So where does this proposal keep coming from? It has been talked about a couple of times and even implemented once. A week later the did away with it. Now it is coming up again. It is extremely difficult for schools like FSU, Clemson and others. I haven't heard of any fans that like the idea (most are indifferent at best). Do they not have anything better to do? If they need something to do, they just need to post here. I'm sure we can come up with a very long to-do list.

(02-06-2014 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

It's because what Pitt is likely to get out of a 9th ACC game is about guaranteed to be equal or better than what we'd be able to get out of a home-and-home left to our own devices, since it would mean more visits from FSU, Clemson, NCSU, BC, and Louisville.

I personally don't like it because I think we should be playing one of PSU, WVU or ND every year, but that isn't going to happen, not that fans preferences matter anyway. It's coming because of the network. Coming to the SEC too. It's almost assuredly a matter of when, not if.

(02-06-2014 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So where does this proposal keep coming from? It has been talked about a couple of times and even implemented once. A week later the did away with it. Now it is coming up again. It is extremely difficult for schools like FSU, Clemson and others. I haven't heard of any fans that like the idea (most are indifferent at best). Do they not have anything better to do? If they need something to do, they just need to post here. I'm sure we can come up with a very long to-do list.

The reason it [9 games] keeps coming up, IMO, is because it would make the AD's job easier. AD's don't want to have to call dozens of other AD's to get 4 OOC games every season when they could just let the league set up 1 more game and cut their work load by 25%. Whether that springs from laziness or some other reason I couldn't say, but I think that's why they keep pushing it. (JMO)

(02-06-2014 03:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

It's because what Pitt is likely to get out of a 9th ACC game is about guaranteed to be equal or better than what we'd be able to get out of a home-and-home left to our own devices, since it would mean more visits from FSU, Clemson, NCSU, BC, and Louisville.

I personally don't like it because I think we should be playing one of PSU, WVU or ND every year, but that isn't going to happen, not that fans preferences matter anyway. It's coming because of the network. Coming to the SEC too. It's almost assuredly a matter of when, not if.

But Pitt could play WVU every year, which is almost a guaranteed sellout, they just choose not to. I agree that PSU is a longshot.

(02-06-2014 04:55 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 03:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

It's because what Pitt is likely to get out of a 9th ACC game is about guaranteed to be equal or better than what we'd be able to get out of a home-and-home left to our own devices, since it would mean more visits from FSU, Clemson, NCSU, BC, and Louisville.

I personally don't like it because I think we should be playing one of PSU, WVU or ND every year, but that isn't going to happen, not that fans preferences matter anyway. It's coming because of the network. Coming to the SEC too. It's almost assuredly a matter of when, not if.

But Pitt could play WVU every year, which is almost a guaranteed sellout, they just choose not to. I agree that PSU is a longshot.

That is true, and I would, but they have decided against it, probably for strategic purposes, as....notice how WVU has fallen off the grid as far as coverage in Pittsburgh metro this year.

If you look at who we scheduled as major out of conference opponents over the last 10 years, about half (ND, UVA, NCSU, VT) are now scheduled for us.

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So where does this proposal keep coming from? It has been talked about a couple of times and even implemented once. A week later the did away with it. Now it is coming up again. It is extremely difficult for schools like FSU, Clemson and others. I haven't heard of any fans that like the idea (most are indifferent at best). Do they not have anything better to do? If they need something to do, they just need to post here. I'm sure we can come up with a very long to-do list.

The reason it [9 games] keeps coming up, IMO, is because it would make the AD's job easier. AD's don't want to have to call dozens of other AD's to get 4 OOC games every season when they could just let the league set up 1 more game and cut their work load by 25%. Whether that springs from laziness or some other reason I couldn't say, but I think that's why they keep pushing it. (JMO)

because that is becoming more difficult for most: Pac-10 at 9 games, B12 at 9 games, Big 10 at 9 games starting this fall, SEC on its way to 9 games due to its network. It keeps coming up because the playoffs and networks are shifting things because of schedule strength, network content availability, and just the plain old practicality of scheduling good non-conference opponents with a now more limited available pool openings.

(02-06-2014 05:11 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So where does this proposal keep coming from? It has been talked about a couple of times and even implemented once. A week later the did away with it. Now it is coming up again. It is extremely difficult for schools like FSU, Clemson and others. I haven't heard of any fans that like the idea (most are indifferent at best). Do they not have anything better to do? If they need something to do, they just need to post here. I'm sure we can come up with a very long to-do list.

The reason it [9 games] keeps coming up, IMO, is because it would make the AD's job easier. AD's don't want to have to call dozens of other AD's to get 4 OOC games every season when they could just let the league set up 1 more game and cut their work load by 25%. Whether that springs from laziness or some other reason I couldn't say, but I think that's why they keep pushing it. (JMO)

because that is becoming more difficult for most: Pac-10 at 9 games, B12 at 9 games, Big 10 at 9 games starting this fall, SEC on its way to 9 games due to its network. It keeps coming up because the playoffs and networks are shifting things because of schedule strength, network content availability, and just the plain old practicality of scheduling good non-conference opponents with a now more limited available pool openings.

I believe there is also a desire by the P5 to 'starve' the G5 as much as possible by not providing possible marque wins, $$$, etc....

(02-06-2014 05:53 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 05:11 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So where does this proposal keep coming from? It has been talked about a couple of times and even implemented once. A week later the did away with it. Now it is coming up again. It is extremely difficult for schools like FSU, Clemson and others. I haven't heard of any fans that like the idea (most are indifferent at best). Do they not have anything better to do? If they need something to do, they just need to post here. I'm sure we can come up with a very long to-do list.

The reason it [9 games] keeps coming up, IMO, is because it would make the AD's job easier. AD's don't want to have to call dozens of other AD's to get 4 OOC games every season when they could just let the league set up 1 more game and cut their work load by 25%. Whether that springs from laziness or some other reason I couldn't say, but I think that's why they keep pushing it. (JMO)

because that is becoming more difficult for most: Pac-10 at 9 games, B12 at 9 games, Big 10 at 9 games starting this fall, SEC on its way to 9 games due to its network. It keeps coming up because the playoffs and networks are shifting things because of schedule strength, network content availability, and just the plain old practicality of scheduling good non-conference opponents with a now more limited available pool openings.

I believe there is also a desire by the P5 to 'starve' the G5 as much as possible by not providing possible marque wins, $$$, etc....

Here's the other thing, and I don't know if this was already talked about, but the legislation that the ACC forwarded to the NCAA about selecting the championship game participant may be a lot less about selecting the "best" championship game participant, that some seem to be focusing on, than have some teams that won't play the same number of conference games in a given year. For instance, FSU could play one less ACC team in the year it gets ND, or even count ND in its conference record. I mean, in theory, such a thing could even make ND eligible for the ACC Championship game. I didn't see how the legislation was written up, so I don't know what they are thinking, but the conference could be waiting to see how that is received before proceeding with any movement forward on 9 games.

(02-06-2014 04:55 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 03:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

It's because what Pitt is likely to get out of a 9th ACC game is about guaranteed to be equal or better than what we'd be able to get out of a home-and-home left to our own devices, since it would mean more visits from FSU, Clemson, NCSU, BC, and Louisville.

I personally don't like it because I think we should be playing one of PSU, WVU or ND every year, but that isn't going to happen, not that fans preferences matter anyway. It's coming because of the network. Coming to the SEC too. It's almost assuredly a matter of when, not if.

But Pitt could play WVU every year, which is almost a guaranteed sellout, they just choose not to. I agree that PSU is a longshot.

You have a four game series coming up with PSU. You have ND in 14, then PSU on your schedule for 15, 16, 17, and 18. What is this longshot you speak of? PSU every year from 2019 onward?

(02-06-2014 07:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:55 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 03:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 01:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Cutcliffe is exactly right.

YEP! I knew I liked Cut' for some reason!

Quote:Of course, our athletic director wants to go to nine games for who knows what reason. Honestly, if Steve Pederson says something I almost always 100% disagree with him.

That's because you want the Panthers to WIN... not sure what your AD wants. (Sadly, he is not the only clueless AD in this league, but maybe ESPN will educate them, if no one else does).

It's because what Pitt is likely to get out of a 9th ACC game is about guaranteed to be equal or better than what we'd be able to get out of a home-and-home left to our own devices, since it would mean more visits from FSU, Clemson, NCSU, BC, and Louisville.

I personally don't like it because I think we should be playing one of PSU, WVU or ND every year, but that isn't going to happen, not that fans preferences matter anyway. It's coming because of the network. Coming to the SEC too. It's almost assuredly a matter of when, not if.

But Pitt could play WVU every year, which is almost a guaranteed sellout, they just choose not to. I agree that PSU is a longshot.

You have a four game series coming up with PSU. You have ND in 14, then PSU on your schedule for 15, 16, 17, and 18. What is this longshot you speak of? PSU every year from 2019 onward?

Yeah, making it an annual thing like the ACC-SEC rivalries. They already have series with Syracuse, WVU, and Virginia Tech for the years following 2019 so it's very unlikely they would also play Pitt those years.

I'm amazed that Penn State actually agreed to a four game series with Pittsburgh. That's not a bad step in the right direction.

(02-06-2014 11:21 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 11:12 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are only two reasons to go to a 9 game conference slate in my opinion.

#1. Nine games are needed to provide enough inventory to launch the ACC network.
#2. Every other P5 conference is at nine games and the ACC is getting penalized for only playing eight.

Agree. And it's not even just inventory...there will be fewer games available, because more than half the games that would be lost would be home games most likely.

It would have to be a quality of content issue, with ESPN making it a demand, rather than just a quantity of games issue. I mean, the SEC has enough inventory at 14 teams and 8 conference games. It's not a numbers issue.

And if ESPN is going to dictate that, they need to be prepared to pay handsomely in my opinion, because there are real drawbacks.

The elimination of divisions is a much better way to increase the quality of content, while still allowing all the benefits of the 8-game schedule.

I am not sure about being penalized by only having 8 games. Perhaps from a strength of schedule point of view.
The main reason for going to 9 games in my opinion is to get more content for the ACC Network. The only way the schools will agree is if ESPN provides a lot more money to make up for the loss of an extra home game.

(02-06-2014 09:13 PM)texasorange Wrote:  I'm amazed that Penn State actually agreed to a four game series with Pittsburgh. That's not a bad step in the right direction.

Paterno was removed from power. That is absolutely the reason.