Big East "open" to Pitt, Syracuse leaving early
Posted on: March 7, 2012 7:35 pm
Edited on: March 7, 2012 7:40 pm
PrintFacebookTwitterLog-in to rate:Log-in to rate:Log-in to rate:The Big East will consider allowing Pittsburgh and Syracuse to leave the league for the ACC a year early in 2013, Big East commissioner John Marinatto said Wednesday.
College football industry sources told CBSSports.com that "there is no doubt" Pittsburgh and Syracuse will be in the ACC in 2013. It's just a question of what type of additional compensation the Big East would require from each school.

Marinatto’s stance is a complete reversal from the league's viewpoint since Pittsburgh and Syracuse announced in September they were leaving the Big East for the ACC. He has stressed continually both schools would have to remain until July 1, 2014 because "the by-laws are the by-laws are the by-laws" when explaining why both schools should remain in the Big East for the full 27 months.

When Pittsburgh and Syracuse gave their notice they were leaving the league, the Big East's exit agreement required a $5 million buyout and 27 months notice. West Virginia was allowed to leave for the Big 12 with less than a year's notice by reaching a $20 million settlement with the Big East.

“Our membership, given the speed and success of our expansion initiatives, I think it’s open to having the discussions with both Pittsburgh and Syracuse about them having an early departure,” Marinatto said. “So we haven't actually had those conversations yet, but our membership is certainly willing to do that at this point given where we've landed.”

The reason the Big East is more receptive to letting them out in 2013, instead of 2014, is with the addition of Temple and its other recent additions, the Big East would have 20 basketball members in the 2013-14 school year if Pittsburgh and Syracuse remained in the league. Without Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2013, the Big East still would have 18 basketball members.

ACC commissioner John Swofford told CBSSports.com last month when the league announced what divisions Pittsburgh and Syracuse would compete in when they join, that the ACC was ready to add both schools as soon as they were able to leave the Big East – whether that’s in 2013 or 2014.

“The fact we made our decision how we will schedule and compete certainly helps us [when they join],” Swofford said last month. “In terms of when that time may come, I don’t want to get into a hypothetical of this or that. Our position continues to be that we want to prepare ourselves when they’re ready and it’s appropriate for them to join us.”


This looks good that Syracuse and Pittsburgh will be in the ACC for the start of the 2013 season. At least now all the schools can plan their out of conference schedules. For Syracuse based on a 9 game ACC schedule in 2013, we will have 3 out of conference games. We have
Penn State (at Metlife - East Rutherford, New Jersey)
at Northwestern
Will have to find a team to replace Boston College as they will now be a conference opponent. Ideally a team like Kent State, Akron or Miami (Ohio) would be good for a game but who knows maybe they can get a game with someone from the B1G.

I hope VT doesn't lose our game with FSU in 2013 (eventhough it's away) when the schedules are re-drawn. That was the last time we play them from when the 10 year schedules were drawn up in 2005. If we get to play them and Clemson 4 times in 8 years and then the schedules are re-drawn, we're actually doing better than the 4 times every 10 years we currently play a non BC opponent from the Coastal.

I'm pretty happy to tear up the 2014 and 2015 schedules though. VT doesn't have FSU or Clemson in either year.

(03-12-2012 01:55 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT doesn't lose our game with FSU in 2013 (eventhough it's away) when the schedules are re-drawn. That was the last time we play them from when the 10 year schedules were drawn up in 2005. If we get to play them and Clemson 4 times in 8 years and then the schedules are re-drawn, we're actually doing better than the 4 times every 10 years we currently play a non BC opponent from the Coastal.

I'm pretty happy to tear up the 2014 and 2015 schedules though. VT doesn't have FSU or Clemson in either year.

I believe that the new format would have you playing games against nondivision opponents twice every 6 years, as compared to twice every 5 years under the current format. Don't know how they would plan to adjust 2013 games, but one way would be to have two schools in each division give up one opponent each (to be replaced with Pitt or SU), preserving 10 of the 12 existing scheduled games.

In the long run it would probably make sense to structure the cross division rotation so that each school is playing one NC, one "southern," and one "northern" opponent each year. For VT, that might mean NC (NCSt, Wake), Southern (Clemson, FSU), and Northern (UMD, SU). For SU, this might mean NC (UNC, Dook), Southern (GT, the U), Northern (UVA, VT).

(03-12-2012 09:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In the long run it would probably make sense to structure the cross division rotation so that each school is playing one NC, one "southern," and one "northern" opponent each year. For VT, that might mean NC (NCSt, Wake), Southern (Clemson, FSU), and Northern (UMD, SU). For SU, this might mean NC (UNC, Dook), Southern (GT, the U), Northern (UVA, VT).

PROBLEM: That accounts for all 3 x-division games, which means you now have to toss BC back into the mix (giving 3 "Northern" teams). But I think you are on the right track as far as doing away with permanent x-div. partners and just playing 3 teams from the other division each year...

(03-12-2012 12:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 09:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In the long run it would probably make sense to structure the cross division rotation so that each school is playing one NC, one "southern," and one "northern" opponent each year. For VT, that might mean NC (NCSt, Wake), Southern (Clemson, FSU), and Northern (UMD, SU). For SU, this might mean NC (UNC, Dook), Southern (GT, the U), Northern (UVA, VT).

PROBLEM: That accounts for all 3 x-division games, which means you now have to toss BC back into the mix (giving 3 "Northern" teams). But I think you are on the right track as far as doing away with permanent x-div. partners and just playing 3 teams from the other division each year...

I don't think you can do away with annual cross division rivals unless you put Miami and FSU in the same division. Since they have to play each other every year.

Something like this might work (doing away with permanent partners)*:

Atlantic yr Coastal
------- -- ---------
Fla State 1 Miami
Wake Fst 1 Duke
Maryland 1 Virginia
------- -- ---------
Syracuse 2 Pittsburgh
Clemson 2 Ga Tech
NC State 2 N Carolina
------- -- ---------
B College 3 Va Tech
Fla State 3 Miami
Wake Fst 3 Duke
------- -- ---------
Maryland 4 Virginia
Syracuse 4 Pittsburgh
Clemson 4 Ga Tech
------- -- ---------
NC State 5 N Carolina
B College 5 Va Tech
Fla State 5 Miami
------- -- ---------
Wake Fst 6 Duke
Maryland 6 Virginia
Syracuse 6 Pittsburgh
------- -- ---------
Clemson 7 Ga Tech
NC State 7 N Carolina
B College 7 Va Tech
------- -- ---------
cycle repeats every 7 years

If you are in the Coastal, you'd play the 3 Atlantic teams beside the year#; if you are in the Atlantic, you'd play the 3 Coastal teams listed. You start off each team in a different year of the cycle (e.g. FSU in year 1, Wake Forest in year 2, etc.) and just start rotating.

DOWNSIDE: There would be years in which FSU would not play Miami, Clemson would not play Ga Tech, etc.
UPSIDE: Instead of a team like Clemson playing Va Tech or Miami 2 times in 6 years, under this plan each team would play every other team 3 times every 7 years.

Having said all that, I'm not 100% sure I like this, but maybe the bugs could be worked out of it to get a schedule the fans could get excited about...?

What are everyone's thoughts to having 2 Perm Rivals?

(03-12-2012 01:04 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  What are everyone's thoughts to having 2 Perm Rivals?

Wrong direction. We need less - not more - permanent. I'm thinking something along the lines of the basketball pairs (4 of which are in-division, with 3 cross-division) might be a model for a 14-team 6-year cycle, with 3 pairs of teams having 1 permanent rival (FSU/Miami, Clemson/Ga Tech, and Maryland/Pitt) while the other 8 teams have more of a North/middle/South schedule.

(03-12-2012 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 01:04 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  What are everyone's thoughts to having 2 Perm Rivals?

Wrong direction. We need less - not more - permanent. I'm thinking something along the lines of the basketball pairs (4 of which are in-division, with 3 cross-division) might be a model for a 14-team 6-year cycle, with 3 pairs of teams having 1 permanent rival (FSU/Miami, Clemson/Ga Tech, and Maryland/Pitt) while the other 8 teams have more of a North/middle/South schedule.

Good point... Either the way, really hoping this gets done for 2013. Can't wait to watch some ACC Football.

(03-12-2012 12:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 09:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In the long run it would probably make sense to structure the cross division rotation so that each school is playing one NC, one "southern," and one "northern" opponent each year. For VT, that might mean NC (NCSt, Wake), Southern (Clemson, FSU), and Northern (UMD, SU). For SU, this might mean NC (UNC, Dook), Southern (GT, the U), Northern (UVA, VT).

PROBLEM: That accounts for all 3 x-division games, which means you now have to toss BC back into the mix (giving 3 "Northern" teams). But I think you are on the right track as far as doing away with permanent x-div. partners and just playing 3 teams from the other division each year...

Whoops, my bad. Non annual opponents will be twice every 6 years instead of twice every 5 under the current format. Schedules should be set to avoid playing both rotating games in any season against a southern, northern, or NC opponent.

(03-12-2012 01:55 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT doesn't lose our game with FSU in 2013 (eventhough it's away) when the schedules are re-drawn. That was the last time we play them from when the 10 year schedules were drawn up in 2005. If we get to play them and Clemson 4 times in 8 years and then the schedules are re-drawn, we're actually doing better than the 4 times every 10 years we currently play a non BC opponent from the Coastal.

I'm pretty happy to tear up the 2014 and 2015 schedules though. VT doesn't have FSU or Clemson in either year.

Would it not be better for VT to avoid FSU and Clemson. Both of those teams are on the upswing and figure to be pretty good over the next couple years. I think VT would have an easier road if they did not have to play them.
It looks like Syracuse is going to have to play both of them every year. Probably not ideal right now but who knows maybe the football team will play better in the next couple years.

(03-12-2012 12:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Something like this might work (doing away with permanent partners)*:

Atlantic yr Coastal
------- -- ---------
Fla State 1 Miami
Wake Fst 1 Duke
Maryland 1 Virginia
------- -- ---------
Syracuse 2 Pittsburgh
Clemson 2 Ga Tech
NC State 2 N Carolina
------- -- ---------
B College 3 Va Tech
Fla State 3 Miami
Wake Fst 3 Duke
------- -- ---------
Maryland 4 Virginia
Syracuse 4 Pittsburgh
Clemson 4 Ga Tech
------- -- ---------
NC State 5 N Carolina
B College 5 Va Tech
Fla State 5 Miami
------- -- ---------
Wake Fst 6 Duke
Maryland 6 Virginia
Syracuse 6 Pittsburgh
------- -- ---------
Clemson 7 Ga Tech
NC State 7 N Carolina
B College 7 Va Tech
------- -- ---------
cycle repeats every 7 years

If you are in the Coastal, you'd play the 3 Atlantic teams beside the year#; if you are in the Atlantic, you'd play the 3 Coastal teams listed. You start off each team in a different year of the cycle (e.g. FSU in year 1, Wake Forest in year 2, etc.) and just start rotating.

DOWNSIDE: There would be years in which FSU would not play Miami, Clemson would not play Ga Tech, etc.
UPSIDE: Instead of a team like Clemson playing Va Tech or Miami 2 times in 6 years, under this plan each team would play every other team 3 times every 7 years.

Having said all that, I'm not 100% sure I like this, but maybe the bugs could be worked out of it to get a schedule the fans could get excited about...?

It sounds pretty good. This is probably the fairest way you could do it, so that every team is playing all the other schools and no school has an easier route that another team.

(03-13-2012 12:18 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 01:55 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT doesn't lose our game with FSU in 2013 (eventhough it's away) when the schedules are re-drawn. That was the last time we play them from when the 10 year schedules were drawn up in 2005. If we get to play them and Clemson 4 times in 8 years and then the schedules are re-drawn, we're actually doing better than the 4 times every 10 years we currently play a non BC opponent from the Coastal.

I'm pretty happy to tear up the 2014 and 2015 schedules though. VT doesn't have FSU or Clemson in either year.

Would it not be better for VT to avoid FSU and Clemson. Both of those teams are on the upswing and figure to be pretty good over the next couple years. I think VT would have an easier road if they did not have to play them.
It looks like Syracuse is going to have to play both of them every year. Probably not ideal right now but who knows maybe the football team will play better in the next couple years.

No it wouldn't be better. It's better to beat them when they are good. The conference is soft enough without missing Clemson and FSU 6 out of every 10 years from the Atlantic.

It seems like right now the ACC is forcing all teams into the same scheduling mold when in reality there are 2 distinct groups:
Group 1 - already plays their main "rival(s)" in division
Group 2 - their main rival is in the other division

I think a scheduling model which recognizes this would certainly be better... but I don't see this kind of progressive thinking any time soon.

(03-13-2012 04:30 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 12:18 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  Would it not be better for VT to avoid FSU and Clemson. Both of those teams are on the upswing and figure to be pretty good over the next couple years. I think VT would have an easier road if they did not have to play them.

No it wouldn't be better. It's better to beat them when they are good. The conference is soft enough without missing Clemson and FSU 6 out of every 10 years from the Atlantic.

Over the past few years Va Tech has scheduling these OOC games:
(* = neutral site game)

2004 *Southern Cal, West Virginia
2005 @West Virginia
2006 Cincinnati
2007 @LSU
2008 @Nebraska
2009 *Alabama, Nebraska
2010 *Boise St
2011 <nobody would play us>
2012 @Pittsburgh, *Cincinnati

Does that look like the Hokies are backing down from a challenge?

Here are the highlights of upcoming OOC schedules:

2013 *Alabama
2014 @Ohio St
2015 Ohio St
2016 Wisconsin
2017 @Wisconsin

(03-13-2012 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 04:30 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 12:18 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  Would it not be better for VT to avoid FSU and Clemson. Both of those teams are on the upswing and figure to be pretty good over the next couple years. I think VT would have an easier road if they did not have to play them.

No it wouldn't be better. It's better to beat them when they are good. The conference is soft enough without missing Clemson and FSU 6 out of every 10 years from the Atlantic.

Over the past few years Va Tech has scheduling these OOC games:
(* = neutral site game)

2004 *Southern Cal, West Virginia
2005 @West Virginia
2006 Cincinnati
2007 @LSU
2008 @Nebraska
2009 *Alabama, Nebraska
2010 *Boise St
2011 <nobody would play us>
2012 @Pittsburgh, *Cincinnati

Does that look like the Hokies are backing down from a challenge?

Here are the highlights of upcoming OOC schedules:

2013 *Alabama
2014 @Ohio St
2015 Ohio St
2016 Wisconsin
2017 @Wisconsin

You don't have to tell me, I was at almost every one of those games. I know VT schedules tougher than almost any body.

(03-13-2012 04:30 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 12:18 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 01:55 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT doesn't lose our game with FSU in 2013 (eventhough it's away) when the schedules are re-drawn. That was the last time we play them from when the 10 year schedules were drawn up in 2005. If we get to play them and Clemson 4 times in 8 years and then the schedules are re-drawn, we're actually doing better than the 4 times every 10 years we currently play a non BC opponent from the Coastal.

I'm pretty happy to tear up the 2014 and 2015 schedules though. VT doesn't have FSU or Clemson in either year.

Would it not be better for VT to avoid FSU and Clemson. Both of those teams are on the upswing and figure to be pretty good over the next couple years. I think VT would have an easier road if they did not have to play them.
It looks like Syracuse is going to have to play both of them every year. Probably not ideal right now but who knows maybe the football team will play better in the next couple years.

No it wouldn't be better. It's better to beat them when they are good. The conference is soft enough without missing Clemson and FSU 6 out of every 10 years from the Atlantic.

Not sure that I understand the "6 out of every 10 years." You should be playing each of them once every 3 years, meaning that you are "missing Clemson and FSU 3 out of every 9 years."

(03-13-2012 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Not sure that I understand the "6 out of every 10 years." You should be playing each of them once every 3 years, meaning that you are "missing Clemson and FSU 3 out of every 9 years."

Before this coming year, there were 8 conference games. 5 division games, Boston College as permanent cross division rival and 2 games to rotate around the remaining 5 Atlantic division teams. When you have 2 games rotating around 5 teams, you play each of those schools 4 times every 10 years. So you don't play them 6 times every 10 years.

(03-13-2012 08:16 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Not sure that I understand the "6 out of every 10 years." You should be playing each of them once every 3 years, meaning that you are "missing Clemson and FSU 3 out of every 9 years."

Before this coming year, there were 8 conference games. 5 division games, Boston College as permanent cross division rival and 2 games to rotate around the remaining 5 Atlantic division teams. When you have 2 games rotating around 5 teams, you play each of those schools 4 times every 10 years. So you don't play them 6 times every 10 years.

Just to chime in (if I may), while I agree we "should play each team every 3 years" the fact is that the way the ACC has been scheduling up to now you play each time twice in consecutive years, then no more until you've played all other teams twice. [I hate that, btw]. It's a home/away thing, though personally I think schedule balancing is more important than how long you have to wait for the return visit.

(03-13-2012 08:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 08:16 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 07:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Not sure that I understand the "6 out of every 10 years." You should be playing each of them once every 3 years, meaning that you are "missing Clemson and FSU 3 out of every 9 years."

Before this coming year, there were 8 conference games. 5 division games, Boston College as permanent cross division rival and 2 games to rotate around the remaining 5 Atlantic division teams. When you have 2 games rotating around 5 teams, you play each of those schools 4 times every 10 years. So you don't play them 6 times every 10 years.

Just to chime in (if I may), while I agree we "should play each team every 3 years" the fact is that the way the ACC has been scheduling up to now you play each time twice in consecutive years, then no more until you've played all other teams twice. [I hate that, btw]. It's a home/away thing, though personally I think schedule balancing is more important than how long you have to wait for the return visit.

You've mentioned that before and I think it's a good idea. One that will never be adopted by the ACC but a good idea.