I know this...if Dave Teel thinks 9 is better, you know it is best for football to be at 8. Teel, like much of the ACC doesn't know football, but refuses to follow the football schools lead (normally). It would be like basketball decisions coming from FSU....it just doesn't make sense. But this is how the ACC operates because a VAST majority of ACC schools aren't competitive in football and mainly focus on basketball.
I hope I am wrong.....the conference can't afford to continually go against the football schools, against the revenue generators.
Side note: I would bet Notre Dame gets included in the conference title game somehow. I don't care personally. I see all sides on this one.
I know some say "no special deals", well guess what, the ACC already gave them one. That ship sailed. So I see all sides, but not necessarily agree with all logic often argued.
I do think going to 9 game schedule locks out Notre Dame for good which is stupid given the conference already bent over backwards to get them half in. Makes no sense to lock them out now.
SEC to make decision on 9 game schedule (will remain at 8 games)
Ragu
"Realistically, there should be a compromise. If they go to 9 games, they should have to cater to FSU/Clemson with the divisions. It isn't right that these basketball schools run the conference and just make the football schools eat it on fricken football policy
But in typical ACC fashion, I expect UVA and such to run it and get everything they want while screwing FSU/Clemson over. College football wil suffer too as the extra home games arent' going away unless the ACC makes up the money (and lol at the ACC ever doing that). So less premiere OOC matchups to get another crap ACC game. Wonderful.
The Big 10 went to new divisons that made sense when they went to 9. The SEC has had divisions that are right for years and Mizzou knew the situation coming in. But of course the ACC has to be the one f up.
ACC did the same thing with PItt/Cuse though. First thing I thought of when seeing the announcement was that the ACC wouldnt change the divisions and would simply hand the less attractive team in Cuse to FSU/Clemson. Surprise surprise that it happened. "
ESPN: ACC schedule not set as 8/9 Game Vote looms...
Ragu
"The 3 rivalry way gives the ACC better football matchups and enhances the football product. So they will keep the same crappy divisions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and further waste their resources. That is the way the ACC operates. It's the only league in college football that has divisions that make absolutely no sense at all.
They'll probably go with the stupid 9 game plan and screw FSU/Clemson again. This will take away premiere OOC matchups or extra home games for revenue. Of course most of the teams who want this can't have premiere OOC games because they suck. No idea why Miami is going along with this unless they dont want to play any challenging games OOC or want to continue to rot in mediocrity. "
..........................
NoleLou
"That's got to be the case, right? Without divisions, and with the SEC at at eight, it would be madness to go to nine. Why on earth would you want to pin seven more losses on ACC teams when your conference is struggling to get their football footing?
I really think the ADs for nine just want to get out from under some of the effort and expense of football scheduling, which takes up an inordinate amount of their time.
I have to guess is that if it is split, the ones in favor of eight games are a hell of a lot more passionate about it than the ones that want nine, and can point to actual damages, and also happen to be the ones carrying the football flag for the entire conference.
If the ACC defies that in favor of a bunch of barely-serious football programs that want to save the $1M and the headach of bringing in New Mexico State, I would be absolutely flabergasted. That would be SO old ACC, and out of step with all the good moves they've made in the past couple years.
I might not like some of the things about the ACC basketball setup, but as an FSU fan I'm smart enough to know that what's good for Duke and UNC is good for the conference and benefits FSU, even though I might not like it or think it's fair.
I've been a heavy critic of the ACC in the past, but been strongly supporting what they've done the last couple years and have been all about giving them every benefit of the doubt that they are a changed league and have their act together. Ramming nine games down FSU and Clemson's throat for no good reason would fly in the face of everything I've wanted to believe has changed about the ACC. "
.................................
NoleLou
"I really think it's the fact that OOC scheduling is a major, major headache that takes up a massive amount of time and resources, whether it's four games or three games. I think they look at the amount of hours and hassle they put into that, only to have teams back out because someone else offerend them $250k more etc, and think about how that time could be applied to all the other aspects of their jobs. Plus, the cost of bringing teams in just grows all the time, and I think they fear what it's going to cost to bring an Arkansas State in five or ten years from now.
If you're only bringing in 30-40k a game for some of your home games, it's got to be mighty tempting to take some of that off your plate even if it costs you a game every few years.
That said, I still think the "not playing each other enough" is the biggest concern, and it's a legitimate concern, so I'm hopeful that with dropping divisions that puts it to bed. "
...........................................
UofLGrad07
"Going by public statements, it looks like this is what we have on the 9 game issues.
In favor: GT, Cuse, UVA, Miami, Pitt, NCST, Wake
Against: FSU, Clemson, Duke
No firm statement: UNC, VT, BC
Undecided: UofL"
"A longer article but it adds a few interesting quotes that weren't in the original.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Tom Jurich, UofL AD Wrote: I really don’t care either way. “It doesn’t matter to me. Eight, nine, seven, 10 -- I don’t care. If they want us to play nine plus the game with Kentucky, I’ll do that, too. I don’t care.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Bubba Cunningham, UNC AD Wrote: I am in favor of getting a separate channel, and however we have to do that, I’m willing to consider. I’m flexible because I think a channel is very important to us.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Stan Wilcox, FSU AD Wrote: Also in the room, Miami and Clemson want the same (talking about FSU, Clemson, and Miami playing annually). It’ll be difficult. This is why you see that we haven’t -- it’s a stalemate. [...] I think the issue is, if we collectively agree that we’re going to schedule up, we don’t have to come up with a hard rule we have to go to nine games, or everybody has to schedule one game against an SEC school. It’s just a matter of getting everybody to agree to that.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Dan Radakovich, Clemson AD Wrote: If they don’t have that rival at the end of the year, then they need to schedule a college football playoff equity conference game on a home-and-home basis. If they don’t have that rival, they need to schedule two, but they can do that based on when Notre Dame rolls on and off their schedule.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Mike Bobinski, GT AD Wrote: We’ve got a big conference now, and our collective destiny is important. All of us will rise as the fortunes of our league rise from a football performance perspective, and while nine games will be problematic for us in some ways … I just think that for the good of the brand of ACC football, to me a nine-game schedule feels better.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Craig Littepage, UVA AD Wrote: My position is the nine conference games would be preferable mainly because of the opportunity to clearly play more of our peers in the conference and expose our institutions to each other. It’s one game a year, but that initial game does help our conference in terms of the overall branding and building of relationships and rivalries among all of the institutions.
(04-29-2014 10:33 AM)Blake James, Miami AD Wrote: I’m a believer that the nine-game schedule would be a win for the conference and I believe it would be a win for the University of Miami. That’s where I’m at with it."
Lengthy debate on future ACC football schedules close to resolution
"The case for eight:
•Four non-conference games each season instead of three translates, in theory, to more attractive intersectional matchups such as 2014's Virginia Tech-Ohio State and Florida State-Oklahoma State.
•Such flexibility allows major programs such as Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech to virtually assure themselves the competitive and financial advantages of seven home games annually. That said, projected windfalls from the football playoff and the potential ACC channel would more than recover the lost revenue associated with one less home game every two years.
•Nine requires five road conference games for half the league each season, a considerable hurdle when attempting to qualify for the playoff. But if the Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten and perhaps the SEC, are willing, why should the ACC be skittish?"
ACC Football Season Kickoff Classics in DC/NYC?
HokieMark
"There are two schools of thought when it comes to the split between conference and non-conference games: 8+4 and 9+3. The Big XII, Pac-12 and [soon] the Big Ten all favor 9 conference and 3 non-conference games. Between these three leagues the last football championship any of them won was 2005 (Texas), almost a decade ago. Meanwhile there is one power conference which favors the 8 + 4 model: the SEC. As you know, the SEC have ruled college football for almost a decade. Now the ACC must choose one of these models.
It should be obvious which one to go with but in case it isn't, here are the reasons to choose 8 conference games instead of 9:
* It's an even number - this means that every ACC team gets the same number of home and away games in league every year
* the 9th game means one more loss for half of the teams = fewer bowl-eligible teams
* limiting teams to just 3 non-conference games means each team must choose between
(a) having 7 home games every year, or
(b) playing 2 power non-conference games
It's mathematically impossible to do both
When you consider all of the factors, it would be irresponsible to vote for 9 conference games given the current 12-game season. If you want to play other ACC teams more often, the best solution is to push for adoption of rule changes which would no longer require teams to play every team in their own division (thus allowing you to play more teams in the other division)"
No comments:
Post a Comment