Well, regarding the Miami's 9th game of the year, our athletics department has repeatedly asserted that we don't really have a rivalry with USF, but still, it's a fun game - always nearby and we always have half the fans there and we always win. I think it's good, wish that would be our one "local" game even though it's in non-South Florida Tampa...

(10-22-2013 12:47 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Well, regarding the Miami's 9th game of the year, our athletics department has repeatedly asserted that we don't really have a rivalry with USF, but still, it's a fun game - always nearby and we always have half the fans there and we always win. I think it's good, wish that would be our one "local" game even though it's in non-South Florida Tampa...

Perhaps USF and FIU should switch names

(10-22-2013 02:00 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 12:47 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Well, regarding the Miami's 9th game of the year, our athletics department has repeatedly asserted that we don't really have a rivalry with USF, but still, it's a fun game - always nearby and we always have half the fans there and we always win. I think it's good, wish that would be our one "local" game even though it's in non-South Florida Tampa...

Perhaps USF and FIU should switch names

Hahahaha. Actually more true than one would think... Which is the sad part. LOL!

Speaking of the conference. Cuse AD Daryl Gross stated he is in favor of putting all 14 teams into one football conference. He thinks NCAA legislaton will take away the conference championship rules dictating two divisions. The Network radio guy (employee of SU) didn't press him for more details. Like do you set up pods, have 3-4 annual fixed opponents and rotate the rest, etc...on the surface it sounded better what we have now.

Mark, check out post 61 for an idea

I'm bored, so let's get creative.

In about 9 years when the Big XII GOR is coming to an end, the ACC should offer UTex a ND deal. Not only would that be a HUGE coup for Texas for many, many reasons, but the ACC would also benefit due to Texas' academics, athletic prestige, location, and following (especially if post season rules do force teams fully into conferences).

However, 5 ND games and 5 UTex games leaves 4 ACC schools out in the cold every year.

My solution is organize a mini scheduling agreement with the Pac-12. The ACC could fill the 4 game gap with a game against each of the 4 Cali schools. That could give every ACC team at least one game against a team from Florida, Texas, and California every 3 year span, PLUS a game against ND. Even the SEC can't top that. Honestly, imagine games against ND, USC, UTex, ND in a four year span. And, if Stanford and USC won't do it (bc of the Pac's 9 game schedule and their ND rivalry), they could be substituted with UW and Oregon.

So what's in it for the Pac?
*It would mitigate the Heisman bias.
*It would open up the south east to Pac recruiting
*Greater access to alumni

But is that enough? Probably not. What else could the ACC offer?
I'm thinking a yearly game (that rotates between being home and away) against Duke, Syracuse, UNC, and UL (4 games total) for each of the participating Pac-12 schools (1 for each). It's no secret that the Pac is hurting in basketball, and it's no secret that the ACC is killer at basketball. A rivalry with elite ACC basketball teams could revive basketball at those programs, while generating a ton of interest on the east coast. Think about how big a deal it would be for a school like Oregon, who just dumped money into their basketball facilities to have SU/UL/UNC/Duke come out and grace their new floor every other year. Conversely. Not only is that VERY important for the Pac given it's new network, but it would also make basketball recruiting better. Think about how much easier it would be to sell a NE urban basketball recruit on a school like UW/Oregon/USC and so on if you can promise them a game against Duke and a game against Syracuse. That's HUGE.

Obviously there would be a ton of push from those schools, especially SU who has extensive OOC basketball rivalries, but the potential upside in overall athletic wellness is massive. Anyway, schools like Pitt already sacrificed yearly ND games for the greater good of landing ND, so I feel like there wouldn't be a ton of standing to oppose such an agreement.

Also, since the premier ACC basketball schools and the premier ACC football schools would be doing all the heavy lifting/spending to get everyone premier football games/locations, the conference should implement spending requirements to get a full cut of conference media payouts. I've discussed this before, so I won't go into great detail, but it essentially would consist of free riders forfeiting a fraction of their conference distributions relative to the distance between their budget and a standard deviation below the conference's average budget. The penalties would then be awarded to those schools who have budgets that are in excess of a standard deviation above the conference's average.

Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

So I'm guessing Texas via ND deal and OU and KU for 15/16 which would allow KU and Mizzou to resume their rivalry as part of the ACC vs. SEC weekend.

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

That would be nice... which (& how many) teams would you want from the Big XII? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are no-brainers; anyone else? WVU?

(10-29-2013 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

That would be nice... which (& how many) teams would you want from the Big XII? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are no-brainers; anyone else? WVU?

With Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas, the Acc would overtake the SEC and further cement our hold as the #1 basketball league.

(10-29-2013 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

That would be nice... which (& how many) teams would you want from the Big XII? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are no-brainers; anyone else? WVU?

Not sure. It'd make more sense to take another western Big 12 team. But WVU would get a look.

Kansas has zero football value. Texas and Oklahoma would be the Big score. However, I do not see it happening. West Virginia and Cincinnati would be the best available score.

(10-29-2013 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

That would be nice... which (& how many) teams would you want from the Big XII? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are no-brainers; anyone else? WVU?

Aren't Oklahoma and Oklahoma State joined at the hip?

I'm happy with adding Texas as a partial and forming a scheduling agreement with the elite Pac. That gives us a bump in prestige and a leveled schedule with only a minimal dilution to the conference, and there is absolutely no added dead weight in football, basketball, fan bases/finances, and academics. No other combination can do that.

(10-29-2013 12:37 PM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why not try to get Oklahoma if you're going to try and get Texas? Why let some other conference inevitably take them? Or, why not just take add a Big 12 "pod"?

That would be nice... which (& how many) teams would you want from the Big XII? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are no-brainers; anyone else? WVU?

Aren't Oklahoma and Oklahoma State joined at the hip?

1. That's the common consensus.
2. Wofford is my 2nd favorite school in SC (after Furman, weirdly enough) and one of my top 10 favorite schools in America. Well played.

Why would the Pac 12 bother with an agreement with the ACC when their agreement with the Big Ten didn't work out? And why do you people always think every conference is going to partner with the ACC? An ACC/SEC combo network. An ACC/SEC scheduling agreement. An ACC/Big 12 scheduling agreement. Now an ACC/Pac 12 scheduling agreement.

(10-18-2013 12:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It wasn't going to bring a lot of extra $$$ the last time it was crammed down our throats and the basketball schools still voted it in. It was only after they realized they too were going to be constricted with the addition of the game against the parasite that they dropped the 9th game the first time.

I don't believe that for one second. Judging from the time frame when the schedule was reduced back to 8 games, I have no doubt it was a bone thrown to GT, Clemson and FSU to stay in the conference. The other bone was Louisville chosen over UConn. So tobacco road did do you a couple of favors that are better for you and adverse to what was best for them. Now with the GoR signed and the 3x revenues exit fee in place, you might just have to take 9 conference games.

How I see it going down is pretty simple. The SEC moves to 9 conference games and Fla, UGA, and Ky have to end their yearly rivalry games to allow them the scheduling flexibility to sign a marquee opponent. With those out of the way there won't be any more resistance to the ACC going to 9 games. Clemson gets screwed because their legislature requires the yearly game between Clemson/USC-e. So Clemson will have to do with 6 home games in some years to get the marquee opponents they want.

(10-29-2013 08:22 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why would the Pac 12 bother with an agreement with the ACC when their agreement with the Big Ten didn't work out? And why do you people always think every conference is going to partner with the ACC? An ACC/SEC combo network. An ACC/SEC scheduling agreement. An ACC/Big 12 scheduling agreement. Now an ACC/Pac 12 scheduling agreement.

Nope. A very limited Pac-12 scheduling agreement. The B1G wanted 12 games and wouldn't offer anything in return. That would force some Pac schools into an 11 game commitment/yr. This doesn't do that, making it dramatically different.* It also offers basketball, unlike the B1G proposal. Given that the Pac now owns a network and thus desperately needs 1. content and 2. to increase its customer base, it's not a bad deal. When Pac schools add fans on the left coast, they often do so at the expense of other Pac schools, and the conference as a whole doesn't see a gain. Adding fans on the right coast is a different story, especially given that it has the side advantage of catching the eye of the east coast media machine and thus mitigating the east coast Heisman bias. Anyway, the real money-maker for conference networks is basketball. The football games are already sold. Pac basketball is beyond bad, whereas the ACC is beyond elite. Regular games against big-named ACC teams could very well revive Pac basketball, which would 1. make a ton of money for those schools, seeing as west coast orange round ball is a low hanging fruit, and 2. make a ton of money for the conference as a whole via the P12N, which is currently banking on water polo and track to sell subscriptions.

In short, the ACC would be asking MUCH less and giving a LOT more. That's why it's different.

Also, for the record a de facto "ACC/SEC scheduling agreement" already exists. GT-UGA, FSU-UF, UL-UK, VU-WF, and CU-USC all happen every year. Weird.

Anyway, you're clearly a troll, so troll on my friend.

*USC and Stanford were instrumental in killing the B1G deal because of their ND rivalry. The 9 game conference schedule + ND + B1G team leaves 1 game, which would presumably be occupied by a bought FCS team. That literally leaves no room to adjust their strength of schedule. Therefore, I can see them not being interested, but Oregon and Washington don't have major OOC rivalries, and neither do Cal and UCLA, so they would be a MUCH easier sell than trying to rope the entire conference into an extra game. It's just like the ACC. It would be MUCH easier to push through a 9 game schedule if Clemson and FSU were excluded. So, where the B1G wasn't willing to exclude the Pac equivalent of CU and FSU, the ACC might.

I'm not sure I want a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12. My east coast bias likes to think of the Pac-12 as inferior but they are pretty stout from top to bottom. Those 12 schools get to split up the recruits from the entire western seaboard. There's not a glut of teams over there to compete with so the average team probably has better talent than the average ACC school. Cutting out or pairing USC and Stanford with ND for the cross over helps.

Because of my east coast bias, I don't really care about playing Pac-12 schools. At least with the Big-12, Tex, Okl, WVU and whoever's good that year are exciting. The B1G has OSU, PSU, Nebr, Wisc and Mich and the SEC has 9 exciting teams not counting teams that are good right now like USC-e and Missouri. The Pac-12 without USC? Not exciting. They would be my 4th choice of the other 4 major conferences to have a scheduling agreement.

(10-29-2013 10:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I'm not sure I want a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12. My east coast bias likes to think of the Pac-12 as inferior but they are pretty stout from top to bottom. Those 12 schools get to split up the recruits from the entire western seaboard. There's not a glut of teams over there to compete with so the average team probably has better talent than the average ACC school. Cutting out or pairing USC and Stanford with ND for the cross over helps.

Because of my east coast bias, I don't really care about playing Pac-12 schools. At least with the Big-12, Tex, Okl, WVU and whoever's good that year are exciting. The B1G has OSU, PSU, Nebr, Wisc and Mich and the SEC has 9 exciting teams not counting teams that are good right now like USC-e and Missouri. The Pac-12 without USC? Not exciting. They would be my 4th choice of the other 4 major conferences to have a scheduling agreement.

It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.