(05-22-2020 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 01:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I know that this would result in a loss of TV revenue, but perhaps worth the risk. I think Pitt should go back to independent, and use a league (like ND does) for bowl tie-ins. I miss the traditional schedule Pitt had with BC, Temple, Rutgers, Navy, WVU, Syracuse and so on. There's zero traditional rivals on our schedule.

Your suggestion is perfectly reasonable from most POVs, it is only "radical" from a $$$ POV. As an outsider, I have fond memories of Pitt as an independent. Joining the Big East didn't really change that as it just kind of codified in conference terms the teams Pitt was basically scheduling anyway as an independent. But the ACC schedule is radically different and as you say there just aren't historical connections there.

Won't happen, because the money loss would be huge, but I understand why you would prefer that independent schedule. I think in an ideal world, many of us would like to see basically that schedule of teams you list, minus Notre Dame, as part of a "northeast" conference that never was. i would substitute Penn State for VT, as VT has proven a good fit in every way with the ACC.

The issue in practical terms is why the ACC needs a GOR more than any other conference. They can't afford to have the grafted Northeastern schools leave and take markets away anymore than they can afford to lose their 2 football powers who could make a lot more elsewhere. This GOR was designed to hold parts in the ACC not to strengthen the union. Without Clemson and Florida State and without the Northeastern markets what would be left? How could Tobacco Road afford their fiefdom if not for the indentured servitude of the serfs?

It was pretty clear when the additions were made that the Northeastern schools WVU included were looking for any port in a storm. The coming of the Super Conference was believed to be a fete accompli and nobody wanted to be left out.

Then the farce of the market footprint model predicated upon a dying concept killed by improving technology led to more abominable moves for every major conference but the PAC.

I have to wonder at what point the giant stretches that were made will naturally try to snap back into old form. It may be accelerated by loss of revenue from COVID or by pressure in the disparity of revenue that is growing a chasm among the P5, but it's coming.

Should there be a breakaway I could easily see the accommodation of Pitt Syracuse, West Virginia , Miami, Boston College and a few others even if they rejoined the Big East and were worked in for scheduling in a new closed upper tier of football schools. It would also be the avenue for Notre Dame to play in it but keep their independence.

So I find Clairton's feelings to be somewhat prophetic. At least he gives voice to what many here have long suspected and when voiced were frequently accused of being ACC haters. It's just not hard to see the fault lines in a conference that was manufactured instead of naturally accreted.

IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

Pittsburgh, like UConn, would undoubtedly be welcomed back with open arms into the Big East as a non-football member. It is unfortunate that so many geographic rivalries have been abandoned and discarded throughout the shifts in realignment in the past decade-plus. Even more somber is that, with each passing year and season, it is just another year removed from those annual contests, lessening the shared histories and affiliations over time. UConn, albeit in different circumstance came to that realization, and made their return home. Will others? Who knows. Money drives everything (including UConn's move).

Reading these posts, it is unfortunate that the ACC (not unlike the AAC) has carried-over the Big East's split factions and duality (whether that is in a North/South split, a private/public split, or football/non-football split). The present form of the Big East has absolutely moved past its era of split factions and created a membership that is like-minded and share overwhelmingly similar athletic programs and objectives. UConn, even as an FBS member, still fits that category as a basketball-first athletic program, with a heavy presence in the NE/NYC with an immensely strong brand in basketball (for men's and women's). However, adding any number of additional programs that could pursue that same set-up - whether that is a Pittsburgh, Boston College, Syracuse, West Virginia, etc. - not only does that dilute, once again, what the Big East has created, but there would be serious arguments about whether any of those programs are basketball-first athletic programs (I would certainly argue not, despite the strong branding and history of their basketball programs). Conversely, instead of a Big East-style arrangement, I could see the creation of an alternative NE-based all-sports league (which would definitely bring everything full circle again; that would protect the FBS programs of the NE without associated with non-football members to hit a certain number.

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 01:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I know that this would result in a loss of TV revenue, but perhaps worth the risk. I think Pitt should go back to independent, and use a league (like ND does) for bowl tie-ins. I miss the traditional schedule Pitt had with BC, Temple, Rutgers, Navy, WVU, Syracuse and so on. There's zero traditional rivals on our schedule.

Your suggestion is perfectly reasonable from most POVs, it is only "radical" from a $$$ POV. As an outsider, I have fond memories of Pitt as an independent. Joining the Big East didn't really change that as it just kind of codified in conference terms the teams Pitt was basically scheduling anyway as an independent. But the ACC schedule is radically different and as you say there just aren't historical connections there.

Won't happen, because the money loss would be huge, but I understand why you would prefer that independent schedule. I think in an ideal world, many of us would like to see basically that schedule of teams you list, minus Notre Dame, as part of a "northeast" conference that never was. i would substitute Penn State for VT, as VT has proven a good fit in every way with the ACC.

The issue in practical terms is why the ACC needs a GOR more than any other conference. They can't afford to have the grafted Northeastern schools leave and take markets away anymore than they can afford to lose their 2 football powers who could make a lot more elsewhere. This GOR was designed to hold parts in the ACC not to strengthen the union. Without Clemson and Florida State and without the Northeastern markets what would be left? How could Tobacco Road afford their fiefdom if not for the indentured servitude of the serfs?

It was pretty clear when the additions were made that the Northeastern schools WVU included were looking for any port in a storm. The coming of the Super Conference was believed to be a fete accompli and nobody wanted to be left out.

Then the farce of the market footprint model predicated upon a dying concept killed by improving technology led to more abominable moves for every major conference but the PAC.

I have to wonder at what point the giant stretches that were made will naturally try to snap back into old form. It may be accelerated by loss of revenue from COVID or by pressure in the disparity of revenue that is growing a chasm among the P5, but it's coming.

Should there be a breakaway I could easily see the accommodation of Pitt Syracuse, West Virginia , Miami, Boston College and a few others even if they rejoined the Big East and were worked in for scheduling in a new closed upper tier of football schools. It would also be the avenue for Notre Dame to play in it but keep their independence.

So I find Clairton's feelings to be somewhat prophetic. At least he gives voice to what many here have long suspected and when voiced were frequently accused of being ACC haters. It's just not hard to see the fault lines in a conference that was manufactured instead of naturally accreted.

IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I agree with most everything here, except this begs some clarity. Most old school ACC fans pine for the days of the double round robin. I don't think any ACC fan would call a Pitt or Syracuse fan an ACC-hater for wanting to play more teams from their history. Having the ACC tourney in MSG every year is a different argument.

Let's be realistic, Syracuse and Boston College killed northeastern football and Pitt went along for the ride. Trying to sub Miami in for Penn State was like walking on hot coals for a decade. Eventually, the Canes joined the ACC – which they should have been a member of since 1990, IMO.

Penn State is perfectly happy being in the Big Ten, more now than ever. Rutgers and Maryland are traditional doormats, er, opponents, and look like Big Ten schools on paper as well.

Institutionally, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame are excellent fits in the ACC. The only problems people bring up are the cultural differences of the older members of the fanbases and the odd division format. If the divisions could be abolished, the conference would flow SO much better. Yet, these archaic rules are still in place because other conferences don't want the ACC to succeed.

The ACC tried to go division-less in 2003! BC* wouldn't have been invited if it weren't for the big fat bullies banding together forcing the addition. So when you talk about manufactured conferences, please don't fail to recognize the SEC's hand in all this.

*Personally, I think WVU should have been invited instead of BC, but markets were all the rage back then.

Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

As you said, you are an outsider. The ACC is as tight as any conference. If UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Clemson, or Georgia Tech wished to be somewhere else, the conference would have disbanded a long time ago.

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

The ACC is an East Coast conference of similar institutions. Louisville was added to strengthen athletics after Maryland left, just like WVU was added to the Big XII when their member schools left for more money.

At the president level, I don't think you'll see many differing viewpoints in the ACC.

Better move is too advocate the acc expanding with Cincinnati, West Virginia and either temple or UConn than break off into 2 separate divisions of 9 that only crossover is conference tournaments. The concept of Pitt leaving solo is dumb. Pitt biggest problem is PA politicians didn’t demand Pitt be joined in with penn state to get big 10 admittance back in the day for both schools.

ACC

Coastal: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Nc State, duke, wake, Clemson, GTech, FSU
Atlantic: BC, cuse, Pitt, temple, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, , Miami, ND*

ND will play 1 coastal and 4 Atlantic teams per year. Sign up navy, army or BYU to play 4 Atlantic teams per year to balance the schedule

Nothing stopping the ACC from adding two of Cincinnati, Temple, and UConn now. West Virginia would be available after their GOR is over. They certainly want to wait for Notre Dame and leave a spot for them to join the ACC in football but good luck with that.

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

(05-22-2020 10:01 AM)chess Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

As you said, you are an outsider. The ACC is as tight as any conference. If UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Clemson, or Georgia Tech wished to be somewhere else, the conference would have disbanded a long time ago.

The Carolina-VA core is tight as a drum. Toss GT in there as well. Those seven are where they want to be.

The others? IMO the main reason they aren't elsewhere is because they haven't gotten an offer from elsewhere, meaning the SEC or B1G.

Truthfully, college sports would be better in so many ways with the return to tighter, regional conferences. It's better and more interesting for fans and for players. What it isn't better for is the money, and the reality we live in is that money drives 99% of the decisions in college athletics.

It's not a hot take at all, it's just controversial because it would cost so much money. But unfortunately, we let that cat out of the bag a long time ago, and I don't think it's coming back in.

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

I don't disagree with anything you said here Quo, but poor Missouri is a fish out of water and gasping for air. They had less than 5 games against all other SEC members except for A&M (all Big 12) and Vanderbilt who apparently played them often way back when, which is even well before me. They have great people who try hard to fit in but truly have nothing in common with most Southerners. And looking at their athletics sag in the SEC is painful, not for us, but for them.

I agree 100% about the Aggies and they seem to love the SEC. But let's be honest Rutgers is inexplicably in the Big 10 and was last I looked the only one of the P5 schools subsidized at or above 25%. West Virginia belongs somewhere, just not in the Big 12 where they do okay but are an absolute outlier and over time that is going to wear mighty thin.

I don't see a bad fit in the PAC, but sadly their issues are internal.

I raise this point not to have anyone kicked out, but to say if there is a breakaway it would be the perfect time to address the hangover of the market footprint additions and possibly align them in ways better suited to those schools.

On a side note we will either wind up with extreme divisions in revenue within the P5 if we stay or we will have an opportunity to address some of that inequity if we breakaway. I think the impetus is there. We'll see.

(05-22-2020 01:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I know that this would result in a loss of TV revenue, but perhaps worth the risk. I think Pitt should go back to independent, and use a league (like ND does) for bowl tie-ins. I miss the traditional schedule Pitt had with BC, Temple, Rutgers, Navy, WVU, Syracuse and so on. There's zero traditional rivals on our schedule. I'd rather play Navy on a yearly basis than Duke, I'd rather play Rutgers on a yearly basis than North Carolina. This is nothing personal against the likes of Virginia and Georgia Tech, but these games just don't get me excited for Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong with this opinion. But conference realignment and the chase of money really destroyed what was left of northeastern football. Big East was a valiant effort to create a northeastern league, but wasn't meant to be. But being in a southern based league with no rivals isn't the fit I was expecting it to be. Virginia Tech is the closest thing we have to a yearly rival, and it doesn't come close to the hatred we had with WVU and likely never will. We may hate a Miami, but we're not close to being Miami's top rival either. Florida, FSU and ND are much more rivals for Miami than Pitt is. Call this buyer's remorse, I don't know. But if I'm Pitt admin, I'm closely looking to what UConn and BYU are doing.

Gimme this sample schedule:

Army
Virginia Tech
Temple
Maryland
Boston College
Rutgers
Navy
BYU
Notre Dame
Syracuse
UConn
WVU

And I'm sure many Pitt fans will disagree, and that's ok. My opinion doesn't represent that of all Pitt fans nor those that run Pitt athletics.

Pitt is in a tough spot and the ACC’s zipper alignment doesn’t help. Unfortunately, beggars can’t be choosers...and the ACC does not hold football rights to Pitt’s three biggest draws: PSU, WVU and ND.

It’s possible (but highly unlikely) that future realignment could move schools like ND and WVU into the ACC’s football schedule. At that point Pitt could press for division-less scheduling, with fixed permanent rivals.

In the meantime, need to recommend to the Pitt AD to stop scheduling games against Oklahoma State, Iowa, UCF and Rice...might be better to focus more on regional opponents from your list when doing OOC schedules. The ACC lineup can then serve as a healthy geographic variety.

Sorry to pile-on with my dislike of Pitt football scheduling practices, but...

The ACC allows schools 4 out-of-conference games. That is more flexibility than is given at other P5 conferences such as the BIG, B12 and PAC. No doubt that the league could generate more media revenue by restricting OOC schedules.

Just seems really bad that Pitt scheduled with UCF. Temple and UConn should be begging to play Pitt. Miami (and occasional FSU) already provide exposure to Florida.

Scheduling with Rutgers or Maryland can’t be more difficult than Iowa. Scheduling Rice can’t be easier than Army or Navy.

Even UNC and WFU swallowed some pride and scheduled an OOC game with each other...because they wanted a more geographic rivalry. Pitt could do a similar arrangement with BC.

(05-22-2020 08:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well, Pitt decided to join the Big East where only two schools played 1-A football – Villanova had just dropped their program – and coincidently, those two are who they're still in a conference with. Although, they only play Syracuse every season. Of the teams you mentioned, Virginia Tech is on the schedule every year too.

I think West Virginia, Temple, and UConn would play a yearly game right now, and Notre Dame pops up on the schedule every now and then – not getting them yearly. A yearly game with Navy isn't happening no matter what, they're in a conference without much wiggle room schedule-wise. On a side note, Penn State (main rival) ditched Pitt, and being an Independent wouldn't help Pitt in that regard.

Let's take a closer look here, I think you'll see that Independence won't help Pitt schedule most of these teams:

Army - - Probably could have a series now, but not yearly
Virginia Tech - - Already play yearly, going Indy could eliminate that
Temple - - Definitely could schedule a yearly series
Maryland - - Doubt they would schedule a yearly series no matter what. Nothing preventing a limited series now
Boston College - - This one sucks because of divisions
Rutgers - - See Maryland
Navy - - Schedule is restricted due to AAC conference slate and yearly Academy opponents
BYU - - Definitely could schedule a series
Notre Dame - - Staying in the ACC is the best way to guarantee a series with them
Syracuse - - Already play yearly, going Indy could eliminate that
UConn - - Definitely could schedule a yearly series
WVU - - Upcoming series if IIRC, should be played yearly during Rivalry Week

(05-22-2020 08:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This ND fan says hell yeah, I would love to see Pitt as a football independent.

Notre Dame and Pitt used to play each other almost every year before this ACC stuff came about.

Pitt being an Independent would not make Notre Dame schedule them on an annual basis.

Had Notre Dame stayed in the Big East, then they could still schedule Pitt, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and whomever else they wanted every season.

On a side note, the ACC really needs to push the ND-Louisville basketball series. Why the hell is ND playing GaTech (?!?!) twice in basketball every season and not Louisville?

(05-22-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:01 AM)chess Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

As you said, you are an outsider. The ACC is as tight as any conference. If UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Clemson, or Georgia Tech wished to be somewhere else, the conference would have disbanded a long time ago.

The Carolina-VA core is tight as a drum. Toss GT in there as well. Those seven are where they want to be.

The others? IMO the main reason they aren't elsewhere is because they haven't gotten an offer from elsewhere, meaning the SEC or B1G.

ND likes being a partial member of the ACC.

("Partial" being a misnomer as ND is a full voting rights member, gets a full share of ACC Network profits and 24 of its 26 programs---except football and hockey--- compete in the ACC)

It would rather that than be a partial member of the Big Ten, for instance (even if that were possible and offered).

It likes playing and getting exposure along the East Coast from Boston to Miami.

It is a much better institutional fit than the Big Ten would be by a long shot.

(05-22-2020 10:01 AM)chess Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

As you said, you are an outsider. The ACC is as tight as any conference. If UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Clemson, or Georgia Tech wished to be somewhere else, the conference would have disbanded a long time ago.

You described Tobacco Road/old ACC. VT wasn’t originally part of that group but they fit there.

I’m being more specific on the ACC post 2005. It was expanded for television purposes only. What do exactly Louisville and Boston College have in common?

(05-22-2020 11:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND likes being a partial member of the ACC.
It likes playing and getting exposure along the East Coast from Boston to Miami.

It is a much better institutional fit than the Big Ten would be by a long shot.

Totally agree, and they get much better exposure in the ACC than they would the Big East, which is a Northeast/Midwest conference.

What's your theory on ND's annual basketball partners, BC and GaTech. I mean, I understand BC to an extent, but GaTech??

(05-22-2020 12:12 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:01 AM)chess Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

As you said, you are an outsider. The ACC is as tight as any conference. If UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Clemson, or Georgia Tech wished to be somewhere else, the conference would have disbanded a long time ago.

You described Tobacco Road/old ACC. VT wasn’t originally part of that group but they fit there.

I’m being more specific on the ACC post 2005. It was expanded for television purposes only. What do exactly Louisville and Boston College have in common?

Well, they were when it was the Southern Conference. UNC tried to get them in the ACC when the conference formed, but were denied. Most ACC teams played VaTech continually over the years.

I actually like the idea of taking drivable day trips to watch Maryland play other like-minded schools in the northeast. And I wouldn't complain if Maryland took a pay cut to make it happen.

(05-22-2020 11:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Sorry to pile-on with my dislike of Pitt football scheduling practices, but...

The ACC allows schools 4 out-of-conference games. That is more flexibility than is given at other P5 conferences such as the BIG, B12 and PAC. No doubt that the league could generate more media revenue by restricting OOC schedules.

Just seems really bad that Pitt scheduled with UCF. Temple and UConn should be begging to play Pitt. Miami (and occasional FSU) already provide exposure to Florida.

Scheduling with Rutgers or Maryland can’t be more difficult than Iowa. Scheduling Rice can’t be easier than Army or Navy.

Even UNC and WFU swallowed some pride and scheduled an OOC game with each other...because they wanted a more geographic rivalry. Pitt could do a similar arrangement with BC.

Temple would gladly play Pitt but have no need to beg. They have had or have home and homes with the following P5 teams: Maryland, GT, Miami, Rutgers (4 games), BC, Duke and even Penn State. They also have Oklahoma playing in Philly (as part of the only 2 for 1 they have agreed to since the ND series was announced in 2011).

Temple and Pitt have come close to scheduling a football series (b-ball as well) in recent years. However, the chances of this happening decreased once Temple got a home and home with Penn State in 2026/2027 (as Pitt wanted PSU to play them more often).