(12-05-2018 09:52 PM)nole Wrote:  Didn't he block the ACC from doing this? Am I remembering that right?

Sweet justice if that is the case and it blew up in his face. Screw him and the B1G

Ya. We want aliens invade Earth and blow up Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State campus.

(12-15-2018 10:20 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 09:52 PM)nole Wrote:  Didn't he block the ACC from doing this? Am I remembering that right?

Sweet justice if that is the case and it blew up in his face. Screw him and the B1G

Ya. We want aliens invade Earth and blow up Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State campus.

Co-sign. Lol.

In a 3-5-5 format, who would the permanent “rivals” be?

?
FSU- Miami, Clemson, Louisville
Clem- FSU, GT, NC State
VT- Miami, Virg, Louisville
GT- Clemson, Duke, Pitt
Miami- VT, FSU, BC
UofL- VT, Syracuse, FSU
NC- Duke, NC St, Virginia
Duke- NC, GT, WF
NC St- NC, Clemson, WF
WF- Duke, NC St, Virginia
Virg- VT, NC, WF
Pitt- Syracuse, BC, GT
Syr- Pitt, Louisville, BC
BC- Miami, Pitt, Syracuse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-15-2018 01:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  In a 3-5-5 format, who would the permanent “rivals” be?

?
FSU- Miami, Clemson, Louisville
Clem- FSU, GT, NC State
VT- Miami, Virg, Louisville
GT- Clemson, Duke, Pitt
Miami- VT, FSU, BC
UofL- VT, Syracuse, FSU
NC- Duke, NC St, Virginia
Duke- NC, GT, WF
NC St- NC, Clemson, WF
WF- Duke, NC St, Virginia
Virg- VT, NC, WF
Pitt- Syracuse, BC, GT
Syr- Pitt, Louisville, BC
BC- Miami, Pitt, Syracuse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately the league would make us take State as our #3 instead of Wake or Georgia Tech to go along with Duke and UVa.

Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

Well to be fair we don't know this is even what UNC wants.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

The SEC did something similar back when they had GT and Tulane. They didn’t put emphasis on a perfect rotation, rather the maximization of games with opponents that mattered.

UNC would still play either Miami or FSU every year, and Clemson quite a bit more often than now. I don’t see the problem.

Im just happy that this is back in the realm of possibility again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thinking "out loud" here ...

With an 8 game conference schedule, no divisions, the best schedule would be the 3 permanent, 5 rotate on, getting you through the entire conference home and away in 4 seasons.

So 3 - 5 - 5.

With a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, the best schedule would be ... what ..

5 permanent, 4 rotate on?

So a 5 - 4 - 4? Is that right?


I know that my school, and Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech feel pretty strongly about keeping an 8 game conference schedule. With the Notre Dame rotation, plus an out-of-conference in-state rival annually on the schedule, the schedule gets pretty tight adding a conference game to the mix.

As long as the SEC maintains an 8 game conference schedule, I see the ACC doing that too.

But there's no denying that a 9 game schedule, especially when you can lock in 5 permanent opponents in the conference, would probably be much better for TV and the ACC Network.

(12-16-2018 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

The SEC did something similar back when they had GT and Tulane. They didn’t put emphasis on a perfect rotation, rather the maximization of games with opponents that mattered.

UNC would still play either Miami or FSU every year, and Clemson quite a bit more often than now. I don’t see the problem.

Mattered to who? In the early days when TV appearances were controlled by first the NCAA and then later the CFA the "wealth" was spread around (at least amongst the 63 colleges that formed the CFA when it transitioned from the NCAAs). So emphasis on games that may have drove ticket sales was more feasible.

As you know that all changed in the 90s as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court decision on NCAA vs the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and conferences and independent ND able to negotiate their own TV contracts.

Since the 90s TV has become the driver but there still exists some correlation between the top rated games and ticket sales. But the top teams still generate massive ticket sales even against FCS opponents.

It seems to me you believe that as many "rivalries" as possible should be preserved on an annual basis at the expense of TV while I believe fewer so-called rivalries should be preserved in order to serve better TV match-ups because many of them have simply lost relevance not just amongst nationwide audiences but even their own fans many of whom don't care about the history the way you (or even I) do.

But in either case, it seems to me that the current set-up doesn't serve either point of view. It will be interesting to see which view wins out over time.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-16-2018 03:22 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  Thinking "out loud" here ...

With an 8 game conference schedule, no divisions, the best schedule would be the 3 permanent, 5 rotate on, getting you through the entire conference home and away in 4 seasons.

So 3 - 5 - 5.

With a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, the best schedule would be ... what ..

5 permanent, 4 rotate on?

So a 5 - 4 - 4? Is that right?


I know that my school, and Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech feel pretty strongly about keeping an 8 game conference schedule. With the Notre Dame rotation, plus an out-of-conference in-state rival annually on the schedule, the schedule gets pretty tight adding a conference game to the mix.

As long as the SEC maintains an 8 game conference schedule, I see the ACC doing that too.

But there's no denying that a 9 game schedule, especially when you can lock in 5 permanent opponents in the conference, would probably be much better for TV and the ACC Network.

Yes, if the league were to go to a 9 game schedule and remain at 14 members, then 5-4-4 is likely what would happen. And yes, as long as the SEC remains at 8 conference games so will the ACC.

But not sure that a 9 game conference schedule is best for the league in terms of TV viewership. Between 2013-2018 there were a potential of 336 OOC games to air on TV, of which 105 made it to TV (excluding ESPNU games). The average viewership for those 105 games was 3.151 million viewers. Same time frame there were a potential of 336 regular season conference games plus 6 ACC championship games for a total of 342. Of that 342, 161 made it to TV (excluding ESPNU games). The average viewership for those games was 2.346 million viewers.

I would like for the conference to get to the point where OOC games were not so integral to TV viewership as it is now, but we aren't there yet.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-16-2018 03:32 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

The SEC did something similar back when they had GT and Tulane. They didn’t put emphasis on a perfect rotation, rather the maximization of games with opponents that mattered.

UNC would still play either Miami or FSU every year, and Clemson quite a bit more often than now. I don’t see the problem.

Mattered to who? In the early days when TV appearances were controlled by first the NCAA and then later the CFA the "wealth" was spread around (at least amongst the 63 colleges that formed the CFA when it transitioned from the NCAAs). So emphasis on games that may have drove ticket sales was more feasible.

As you know that all changed in the 90s as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court decision on NCAA vs the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and conferences and independent ND able to negotiate their own TV contracts.

Since the 90s TV has become the driver but there still exists some correlation between the top rated games and ticket sales. But the top teams still generate massive ticket sales even against FCS opponents.

It seems to me you believe that as many "rivalries" as possible should be preserved on an annual basis at the expense of TV while I believe fewer so-called rivalries should be preserved in order to serve better TV match-ups because many of them have simply lost relevance not just amongst nationwide audiences but even their own fans many of whom don't care about the history the way you (or even I) do.

But in either case, it seems to me that the current set-up doesn't serve either point of view. It will be interesting to see which view wins out over time.

Cheers,
Neil

Not entirely true. I believe a program like UNC benefits from playing Wake Forest, more than they do playing Pitt. So who makes up UNC’s yearly opponents is going to be judged differently than say Clemson’s. The game is obviously of significant importance otherwise it wouldn’t have been scheduled as an OOC game.

I don’t believe in breaking up yearly made for TV games like Clemson vs. FSU, even though it isn’t necessarily a traditional trophy game like Clemson vs. NC State. If it came down to FSU or NC State being a permanent rival for Clemson, I would choose FSU, so would Clemson. Clemson would probably benefit more from rotating teams like Virginia Tech in their schedule than having a yearly game vs. NC State.

I believe in a more fluid and flexible conference scheduling system: four rivals for some, three for others! It is the conference office’s job to make every program happy, fluidity does that more efficiently than a hard-and-fast rotation.

I’m sure Duke would prefer four permanent rivals: UNC, Wake, NCSU, and GT.

(12-16-2018 11:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 03:32 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  Four permanent rivals and four rotating makes the most sense for an eight game schedule.

Yes, Duke, NC State, Wake, and the Cavs would be UNC’s.

That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

The SEC did something similar back when they had GT and Tulane. They didn’t put emphasis on a perfect rotation, rather the maximization of games with opponents that mattered.

UNC would still play either Miami or FSU every year, and Clemson quite a bit more often than now. I don’t see the problem.

Mattered to who? In the early days when TV appearances were controlled by first the NCAA and then later the CFA the "wealth" was spread around (at least amongst the 63 colleges that formed the CFA when it transitioned from the NCAAs). So emphasis on games that may have drove ticket sales was more feasible.

As you know that all changed in the 90s as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court decision on NCAA vs the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and conferences and independent ND able to negotiate their own TV contracts.

Since the 90s TV has become the driver but there still exists some correlation between the top rated games and ticket sales. But the top teams still generate massive ticket sales even against FCS opponents.

It seems to me you believe that as many "rivalries" as possible should be preserved on an annual basis at the expense of TV while I believe fewer so-called rivalries should be preserved in order to serve better TV match-ups because many of them have simply lost relevance not just amongst nationwide audiences but even their own fans many of whom don't care about the history the way you (or even I) do.

But in either case, it seems to me that the current set-up doesn't serve either point of view. It will be interesting to see which view wins out over time.

Cheers,
Neil

Not entirely true. I believe a program like UNC benefits from playing Wake Forest, more than they do playing Pitt. So who makes up UNC’s yearly opponents is going to be judged differently than say Clemson’s. The game is obviously of significant importance otherwise it wouldn’t have been scheduled as an OOC game.

I don’t believe in breaking up yearly made for TV games like Clemson vs. FSU, even though it isn’t necessarily a traditional trophy game like Clemson vs. NC State. If it came down to FSU or NC State being a permanent rival for Clemson, I would choose FSU, so would Clemson. Clemson would probably benefit more from rotating teams like Virginia Tech in their schedule than having a yearly game vs. NC State.

I believe in a more fluid and flexible conference scheduling system: four rivals for some, three for others! It is the conference office’s job to make every program happy, fluidity does that more efficiently than a hard-and-fast rotation.

I’m sure Duke would prefer four permanent rivals: UNC, Wake, NCSU, and GT.

I seriously doubt scheduling will ever be like you describe above. So assuming 3-5-5 were to come about, what three annual conference games would you as a fan want for UNC and which of the four would be played twice every four years. Then what do you think the conference would want to happen?

Cheers,
Neil

(12-17-2018 02:49 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 11:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 03:32 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 11:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  That's way too soft a schedule. If UNC even becomes mediocre they'll be challenging for the championship game.

And how does 4 permanent and 4 rotating make the most sense? You play 4 permanent and rotate 4 around the remaining 9. Is that even possible? With 3 permanent and 5 rotating around the remaining 10, you have perfect balance and play everyone every 2 years and everyone home and away every 4 years.

This is definitely one decision that should not go UNC-ch's way.

The SEC did something similar back when they had GT and Tulane. They didn’t put emphasis on a perfect rotation, rather the maximization of games with opponents that mattered.

UNC would still play either Miami or FSU every year, and Clemson quite a bit more often than now. I don’t see the problem.

Mattered to who? In the early days when TV appearances were controlled by first the NCAA and then later the CFA the "wealth" was spread around (at least amongst the 63 colleges that formed the CFA when it transitioned from the NCAAs). So emphasis on games that may have drove ticket sales was more feasible.

As you know that all changed in the 90s as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court decision on NCAA vs the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and conferences and independent ND able to negotiate their own TV contracts.

Since the 90s TV has become the driver but there still exists some correlation between the top rated games and ticket sales. But the top teams still generate massive ticket sales even against FCS opponents.

It seems to me you believe that as many "rivalries" as possible should be preserved on an annual basis at the expense of TV while I believe fewer so-called rivalries should be preserved in order to serve better TV match-ups because many of them have simply lost relevance not just amongst nationwide audiences but even their own fans many of whom don't care about the history the way you (or even I) do.

But in either case, it seems to me that the current set-up doesn't serve either point of view. It will be interesting to see which view wins out over time.

Cheers,
Neil

Not entirely true. I believe a program like UNC benefits from playing Wake Forest, more than they do playing Pitt. So who makes up UNC’s yearly opponents is going to be judged differently than say Clemson’s. The game is obviously of significant importance otherwise it wouldn’t have been scheduled as an OOC game.

I don’t believe in breaking up yearly made for TV games like Clemson vs. FSU, even though it isn’t necessarily a traditional trophy game like Clemson vs. NC State. If it came down to FSU or NC State being a permanent rival for Clemson, I would choose FSU, so would Clemson. Clemson would probably benefit more from rotating teams like Virginia Tech in their schedule than having a yearly game vs. NC State.

I believe in a more fluid and flexible conference scheduling system: four rivals for some, three for others! It is the conference office’s job to make every program happy, fluidity does that more efficiently than a hard-and-fast rotation.

I’m sure Duke would prefer four permanent rivals: UNC, Wake, NCSU, and GT.

I seriously doubt scheduling will ever be like you describe above. So assuming 3-5-5 were to come about, what three annual conference games would you as a fan want for UNC and which of the four would be played twice every four years. Then what do you think the conference would want to happen?

Cheers,
Neil

You weren't asking me but I'll answer part one anyway:

My choice : UVa, Duke, Georgia Tech/Wake Forest
League Choice: UVa, Duke, NC State

Wake is Carolina's oldest rival (1888)
Georgia Tech is important in that there are more Carolina alumni in Atlanta than any other place in the USA outside of the State of North Carolina

(12-09-2018 09:52 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 04:19 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 09:29 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, Louisville

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, Miami

FSU, Clemson, GT, WF, NC State

ND plays 6 games with a shot at the ACC CG, everyone else plays 8?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That pod louisville is in is stinks

That pod is full of the same teams that Loiusville played when they were in the BE and you were happy to be there.

Happy to be in a power conference? Sure, however games against Pitt and Syracuse never really moved the needle for me interest wise. And going from playing FSU, Clemson, and NC State every year to that, besides ND, would be a step down.

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Because it would benefit the ACC. We don't care about the Big Ten.

How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game?
The Irish would have been crazy to play against Clemson and get knocked out of the final four.
If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules.
Why make it easier for the B1G when they crapped all over us?

You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Great post

The league would make UNC’s three rivals what they are now: Duke, UVA, and NC State.

Did you know UNC’s most played opponents in fb:

UVA - 113
Wake - 101
Duke - 98
NC State - 98
Maryland - 70

That’s huge. The top four are in the same conference so they should play UNC every year.

On a side note, the four Pac Cali schools should all play every year as well.

I think a more flexible scheduling option will come from eliminating divisions. I’m sure there is a way a few teams can maintain four permanent rivals, I’m not sure the number, but there is probably a way.

(12-19-2018 02:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  The league would make UNC’s three rivals what they are now: Duke, UVA, and NC State.

Did you know UNC’s most played opponents in fb:

UVA - 113
Wake - 101
Duke - 98
NC State - 98
Maryland - 70

That’s huge. The top four are in the same conference so they should play UNC every year.

On a side note, the four Pac Cali schools should all play every year as well.

I think a more flexible scheduling option will come from eliminating divisions. I’m sure there is a way a few teams can maintain four permanent rivals, I’m not sure the number, but there is probably a way.

Even numbers don't work well, but there is a way to play 5 annual rivals - IF you are willing to go to 9 conference games, that is.

Let's say three permanent rivals are chosen. I tried this a few times last night and I ran into difficulty with some teams. I’m trying to base it on TV and fan interest with a bit of history mixed in. UNC and Duke are easy.

For Louisville I am thinking: Pitt and Virginia are the current basketball partners, so let’s keep Pitt but switch in VaTech for Virginia. It makes more sense because they’re closer and have shared history in the Metro. I’d pick FSU for their third. I can see that continuing to be a big TV game and both schools are somewhat similar.

The northeastern schools could all play a round robin with eachother but then it becomes difficult to find Syracuse and BC’s third. I don’t think it’s fair for one to get Miami over the other, so maybe Virginia and Wake (respectively) can be their third. Louisville would be Pitt’s third.

GT: Clemson, Duke, and Miami.
FSU: Miami, Clemson, and Louisville
Miami: FSU, GT, and VaTech
Clemson: GT, FSU, and State