ACCN: 9 conf games? Would Pitt vote for it?
- Thread starter TIGER-PAUL
- Start date
I believe there is no downside at all. I can't think of a team that needs more than 3 slots for a rivalry. If anything, it saves Athletic Directors from having such a weak Strength of Schedule just to pile up wins.
Make it 10 games and I'm fine with it.
I have always thought a huge moneymaker for the NCAA would be to have a lottery held at this time of the year for a random Power 5 matchup that every team would play to kickoff the season and from bowl money, there would be a fund to cover travel costs. Go in Alphabetical order treat it like a Powerball drawing. Alabama will play................Iowa. The game will be at Alabama as they have home field in this year's drawing.
If anything, it would make the rankings a bit more genuine as it would eliminate "gaming the system" with ADs loading their schedules with cupcakes. It could also lead to more 1 or 2 loss National Champions which is more genuine with a tough schedule.
I'm for any schedule that is tough and against P5 opponent and more ACC games.
Get the SEC playing North, get the ACC playing West.
Make it 10 games and I'm fine with it.
I have always thought a huge moneymaker for the NCAA would be to have a lottery held at this time of the year for a random Power 5 matchup that every team would play to kickoff the season and from bowl money, there would be a fund to cover travel costs. Go in Alphabetical order treat it like a Powerball drawing. Alabama will play................Iowa. The game will be at Alabama as they have home field in this year's drawing.
If anything, it would make the rankings a bit more genuine as it would eliminate "gaming the system" with ADs loading their schedules with cupcakes. It could also lead to more 1 or 2 loss National Champions which is more genuine with a tough schedule.
I'm for any schedule that is tough and against P5 opponent and more ACC games.
Get the SEC playing North, get the ACC playing West.
Teel is the best but I was disappointed this article was pretty mich written like a message board post, Inotherwords, just his opinion without any real facts.
Yea, ESPN would be smart to demand a 9 game football schedule, 20 game basketball schedule amongst other things to create a network.
In fact, if I'm ESPN, I ask for the world such as:
- conference expansion (UConn, Temple, Navy, Houston, etc) to add new TV markets
- 9 game football, 20 game basketball
- early (11AM) and late (8:30) Saturday kicks to stage quadruple headers.
- more weeknight football games, even Wednesday and Friday night
- Friday night basketball
I'm not saying this will all happen but ESPN would be smart to ask because all of those things would be good for THEM if not for the ACC.
I do think the ACC will have to make some concessions if they want a network.
Yea, ESPN would be smart to demand a 9 game football schedule, 20 game basketball schedule amongst other things to create a network.
In fact, if I'm ESPN, I ask for the world such as:
- conference expansion (UConn, Temple, Navy, Houston, etc) to add new TV markets
- 9 game football, 20 game basketball
- early (11AM) and late (8:30) Saturday kicks to stage quadruple headers.
- more weeknight football games, even Wednesday and Friday night
- Friday night basketball
I'm not saying this will all happen but ESPN would be smart to ask because all of those things would be good for THEM if not for the ACC.
I do think the ACC will have to make some concessions if they want a network.
Dear god no UConn, Temple, Navy, and Houston.
UConn wouldn't be completely terrible (due to hoops side) if brought in with three heavyweights (say Texas, Notre Dame, and Penn State) but there is no value in adding them, Navy, Temple, and Houston together.
UConn wouldn't be completely terrible (due to hoops side) if brought in with three heavyweights (say Texas, Notre Dame, and Penn State) but there is no value in adding them, Navy, Temple, and Houston together.
I dont like them but they are excellent for tv ratings. Those Tuesday and Wednesday MAC and Sun Belt games do very well. Americans love live college football.
I didnt say those would be the teams or they'd add them together. Just saying ESPN would have to be pretty stupid to not at least explore how the addition of a few new ACC TV markets might help them sell their network. Not saying it'll happen but they have to explore it. I'm telling you, with a new stadium, that Philly TV market looks awfully appetizing. Delaney thought RU brought NYC. Temple delivers way more of Philly than RU does of NYC.
Thursday Night games are/were great. Then.....Goodell decided the NFL needed to play on Thursday nights.
I doubt that the SEC teams even know where the Mason-Dixon is located, let alone expecting them to cross it to play a football game.
I would be in favor of 9 ACC games. This will help in developing rivalries as we will obviously see teams more often and help build the ACC brand.
i would love 9 conference games just as long as the conference game replaces the annual FCS scrimmage that we have and not one of the 2 P5 OOC games.. I don't want to see one of those Iowa, OK state, Tenn games go away for Boston College or Wake Forest..
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/
Rutgers delivered for the Big Ten. They were able to raise to $1/sub (from $0.44/sub) in NY/NJ. The payout from Cablevision alone went from about $13m per year to over $31m per year. Not sure the numbers for a Time Warner and Comcast. Subscriptions were also up 15% since Rutgers and Maryland joined the league.
If Temple was able to deliver an $18m per year increase from one cable company, they'd be in a power conference already.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. After all that suggestion was from SMF.
any acc expansion would include the usual suspects of temple, UConn, Houston, cincy,etc.. No program in their right mind would leave a P5 conference for the acc, not even a big 12 school. Outside of ok and texas bolting for another conference and the big 12 panicking, the best the acc can do is one of these previously mentioned programs..
yeah, I agree. I like the size of the conference now.. As far as competition, we are decent but need one more nationally respected program. Clemson and FSU are doing their part but a very distant second tier programs.. UNC did well last year but don't seem to ever be able to sustain it.. Louisville I thought was close but had descended back to mediocrity with Teddy leaving.. Va tech is down and out, Miami should be that program but people have been saying that for a decade plus.. Who knows, maybe in a few years, we'll be that program..
It won't. Schools will still need the 7th home game. So it will take away those games. So in reality it will leave 1 game for home and home series.
yeah, that's what im thinking.. cant think how it's possible, with a 9 conference game schedule, how it's possible to have 7 home games every year.. That "off year" you are gonna have 4 home conf. games, then the remaining 3 OOC games are all home? So you'd have to schedule the home and home P5 game so to make sure your home year aligns with the 4 conf game year, then you'd have to have the Youngstown state/grambling/new Hampshire scrimmage at home and the Mac game at home... That's tough to coordinate..
Seriously though why does ESPN need/want a 9th game for inventory - I guess just an additional FSU or Clemson game - rest of league is relegated to ESPN3 unless playing Notre Dame
I'd hope there's some sort of an agreement for more exposure if move to 9th game occurs - maybe cut into the noon ESPN2 Big Ten dregs game of the week
I'd hope there's some sort of an agreement for more exposure if move to 9th game occurs - maybe cut into the noon ESPN2 Big Ten dregs game of the week
Agree. Especially if several other acc have 6. Also decreases ticket supply for Pitt short term.
0 legitimate programs play less than 7 home/payday neutral site games. The programs who do it are ones who are playing on the road at G5 opponents and that is something Pitt should never do.
Well it is one less cream puff a team can schedule. For years Michigan has had one great OOC, then a decent one, and a couple of MAC games. That is 3 to 4 games per year of selling out the stadium before starting conference play.
I realize attendance currently isn't Pitt's calling card, but if you start winning a bunch, it will be.
On the plus side though, it is one more game per year vs P5 competition. Even more so, it is one more game you can sell to the networks.
Right now I would say let Nard get a couple years in would be best bet, and then go to 9. Just looking at it from Pitts point of view. For teams like Clemson and FSU. they are usually pretty good yearly, so I really don't think it would be a negative to them.
2015 - Illinois, Nebraska, Northwestern, Baylor, Iowa State, Oklahoma, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Louisville, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Pitt, Virginia Tech would all disagree with you, at least when it comes to home games. Neutral game sites, although still some amount of a pay day, do not accomplish what home games do - revenue for parking, and all local businesses.
(For the record I did a quick scan and at least Nebraska and Baylor played 6 home games and NO neutral sites, but I stopped looking there, not sure how many more fit that list.)
Last edited:
Illinois played 7 home games. Nebraska played 7 home games. Northwestern played 7 home games. Baylor played 6 home and 1 big pay neutral game.
Neutral games for bigs schools make the AD more money than a traditional home game. That's why they play them and that is what they care about.
Do you want me to look at the rest of your list?
[QUOTE="Jpripper88, post: 1338987, member: 2044"]Illinois played 7 home games. Nebraska played 7 home games. Northwestern played 7 home games. Baylor played 6 home and 1 big pay neutral game.
Neutral games for bigs schools make the AD more money than a traditional home game. That's why they play them and that is what they care about.
Do you want me to look at the rest of your list?[/QUOTE]
Really?
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/big-ten/2015-illinois-fighting-illini-football-schedule.php
Neutral games for bigs schools make the AD more money than a traditional home game. That's why they play them and that is what they care about.
Do you want me to look at the rest of your list?[/QUOTE]
Really?
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/big-ten/2015-illinois-fighting-illini-football-schedule.php
Yes. Illinois chose to have that game at Soldier and got the home gate. Northwestern gets it next year and Illinois the one after.
Yes. Illinois chose to have that game at Soldier and got the home gate.[/QUOTE]
Again - read my original post. Neutral game sites do NOT generate the same amount of revenue as a home game when you take in the whole picture. Home games are HOME games for a reason.
So are we now saying that the list should only be "big schools" not legitimate because no way in heck all neutral games bring in the same revenue for most schools. What it does bring is usually more visibility in an area where alumni may live or better TV exposure.
Illinois is not moving the game to lose money. The school is only worried about their take. When they play neutral site games it because they can make more money.
Last edited:
I said that originally. No it brings in money for the AD and that is what the program cares about, not the local revenues.
BTW, Nebraska played at home vs: BYU, South Alabama, Southern Miss, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Iowa. That is 7. Not sure where the disconnect is.
Illinois is not moving the game to lose money. The school is only worried about their take.[/QUOTE]
Alright - since I don't have actual receipts to back up my argument, I'll concede this argument. But the statement that "no legitimate programs play less that 7 home or neutral site games" is inaccurate.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/big-12/2015-oklahoma-sooners-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/acc/2015-pittsburgh-panthers-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/acc/2015-nc-state-wolfpack-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/big-12/2015-tcu-horned-frogs-football-schedule.php
Just examples, there's more.
(Edit - for whatever reason I was copying some of the wrong links.)
You do realize Oklahoma plays a neutral site game every year. It a little game called the Red River Rivalry? So yes they did play a neutral site game.
Pitt usually plays 7 home games. The reason Pitt played 6 is because poor decision to schedule an away game by Pederson which Barnes has said they won't due again. Sure there are exception to every rule but reality is most schools are going to have seven home or 6 home with 1 neutral site game.
Can't disagree, but every year there are P5 school who play 6 home games without a neutral site game. It happens. (Although conceding some of my examples were wrong, the statement that no teams do it is completely inaccurate.)
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/acc/2015-duke-blue-devils-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/acc/2015-miami-hurricanes-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-14/big-ten/2014-maryland-terrapins-football-schedule.php
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-14/acc/2014-louisville-cardinals-football-schedule.php
Last edited:
id be curious to see how much money pitt is making on these fcs scrimmages compared to playing a competitive P5 home and home.. Does that 7th game, playing new Hampshire, really bring in that much money?? $5 dollar tickets is what we are charging for this year's fcs scrimmage.. after we pay the team to come here, are we really making out? As a fan, give me a good game, against a team that plays D1, that I wont have to watch on my laptop, over this garbage any day..
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Bostick interview- Get out the KY Jelly and rubber gloves- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-