Poll: 8 or 9 league games

[Sean Miller Fan]

I vote for 9. I dont think PSU is going to play us going forward. In a perfect world, we'd play 8 ACC games, PSU, and ND/WVU plus 2 other games but with PSU being out of the picture, I would rather play the extra ACC game than some random mediocre P5 team. I'd rather play NC State than Minnesota or Texas Tech.

Barnes has to vote Friday. How would you vote?

I expect a 10-4 vote for 9.

 

[Swervin27]

its too tough to say.. 9 yes but not at the expense of losing that OOC P5 game.. I'd rather play 8 and Ok state and PSU than 9 with psu and (Wake, NC state, BC, or L'ville).

Is there any chance of 9 with two good P5 OOC games and the FCS scrimmage? Is that even on the table or no?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Is there any chance of 9 with two good P5 OOC games and the FCS scrimmage? Is that even on the table or no?

Yes. In Pitt's case, I'd vote for the mandatory 9+1 (with the 1 being ND every 3 years) but if PSU calls you up and says they want to play us every year forever, then you do it. It wouldn't be ideal because you'd have in some seasons you'd have 9 ACC, ND, and PSU.....and this is why FSU,Clem, GT, and Lou dont want it. In some years they will have 9 ACC games, ND, and their SEC rivalry game. With the GOR and ACCN, they arent much of a threat to leave now so I dont think their influence will carry much weight anymore.

So, Pitt can vote 9+1 but still schedule 2 P5s OOC if they want to.

From the standpoint of Coastal Division teams, this means they will play FSU and Clemson every 3 years instead of every 6. So if you are Pitt or Duke or UVa, its going to be impossible to get a better P5 OOC than that extra game vs FSU or Clemson.

Take my word for it. 9 is happening.

 

[Swervin27]

Yes. In Pitt's case, I'd vote for the mandatory 9+1 (with the 1 being ND every 3 years) but if PSU calls you up and says they want to play us every year forever, then you do it. It wouldn't be ideal because you'd have in some seasons you'd have 9 ACC, ND, and PSU.....and this is why FSU,Clem, GT, and Lou dont want it. In some years they will have 9 ACC games, ND, and their SEC rivalry game. With the GOR and ACCN, they arent much of a threat to leave now so I dont think their influence will carry much weight anymore.

So, Pitt can vote 9+1 but still schedule 2 P5s OOC if they want to.

From the standpoint of Coastal Division teams, this means they will play FSU and Clemson every 3 years instead of every 6. So if you are Pitt or Duke or UVa, its going to be impossible to get a better P5 OOC than that extra game vs FSU or Clemson.

Take my word for it. 9 is happening.

9, ND and PSU/WVU would be a sick schedule, would love it.. Doubt a coach would feel the same.

 

[ThePanthers]

For Pitt, I want 9. I can understand why the schools with SEC rivals don't, especially in the year ND is on the schedule, but that should also make the ADs life easier.

But we are in a conference and conference mates should play each other more often than twice every 12 years.

I don't know how the vote will go, but if I had to guess right now I'd say 9 games will come of this. It is going to be difficult if you don't have a rivalry game to schedule 2 P5 games every single year for every single ACC program.

But part of the deal for the network.

 

[topdecktiger]

I can understand why the schools with SEC rivals don't, especially in the year ND is on the schedule, but that should also make the ADs life easier.

No it won't. You guys have this all wrong. The southern schools aren't against this because they don't want a tougher schedule (SEC rival + Notre Dame). That's got nothing to do with it. The problem is, the southern schools have to give up a home game if they schedule an OOC series. For example, if Clemson schedules a home-and-home with Georgia, then Clemson has to give up a home game one year. Clemson averages 80,000 fans a game. Multiply that by $50 a ticket. That's $4 million they are losing, and that's just for ticket sales. That's not counting concessions, merchandise, etc.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No it won't. You guys have this all wrong. The southern schools aren't against this because they don't want a tougher schedule (SEC rival + Notre Dame). That's got nothing to do with it. The problem is, the southern schools have to give up a home game if they schedule an OOC series. For example, if Clemson schedules a home-and-home with Georgia, then Clemson has to give up a home game one year. Clemson averages 80,000 fans a game. Multiply that by $50 a ticket. That's $4 million they are losing, and that's just for ticket sales. That's not counting concessions, merchandise, etc.

Don't play the extra P5 then. 9 ACC games + SC is enough.

If you want to play an extra P5, you have to decide if its worth giving up the home game.

 

[ThePanthers]

No it won't. You guys have this all wrong. The southern schools aren't against this because they don't want a tougher schedule (SEC rival + Notre Dame). That's got nothing to do with it. The problem is, the southern schools have to give up a home game if they schedule an OOC series. For example, if Clemson schedules a home-and-home with Georgia, then Clemson has to give up a home game one year. Clemson averages 80,000 fans a game. Multiply that by $50 a ticket. That's $4 million they are losing, and that's just for ticket sales. That's not counting concessions, merchandise, etc.

The choice is to go to 9 conference games and 1 P5, or 8 conference games and 2 P5 based on the agreement with ESPN for the network. There is no status quo this time. And I'm guessing those P5 schools will want a home and home. So you are losing the home game anyways.

So instead of having to make long term agreements with schools that you have no control over, having an additional conference game is set by the conference and will not change, making the life of the AD easier.

That is what I mean by that.

Everyone but the SEC plays 9 conference games now, and there are a lot of P5 schools with home and home agreements going well into the next decade. If all 14 ACC schools need to add one additional game every year, that is going to be difficult.

 

[ThePanthers]

Don't play the extra P5 then. 9 ACC games + SC is enough.

If you want to play an extra P5, you have to decide if its worth giving up the home game.

Did you guys read Teel's article I posted. There is no status quo. Part of the ACC Network agreement was for the ACC to either go to 9 conference games plus 1 P5 OOC, or stay at 8, but have a mandatory 2 P5 OOC opponents (which could be ACC schools).

It's either or.

That's why I don't know how the vote will go. They may stay at 8 conference games, FSU, Clemson, GT, and Ville will have their rivalry game plus another OOC P5 game/ND, and the other ACC schools, if having issues getting 2 schools every year, could just schedule each other.

 

[topdecktiger]

Don't play the extra P5 then. 9 ACC games + SC is enough.

If you want to play an extra P5, you have to decide if its worth giving up the home game.

That's frankly stupid. The ACC needs good OOC games, for strength of schedule and playoff reasons. Real brilliant idea to make your best schools either give up games that help the prestige of the conference, or lose money.

The choice is to go to 9 conference games and 1 P5, or 8 conference games and 2 P5 based on the agreement with ESPN for the network. There is no status quo this time. And I'm guessing those P5 schools will want a home and home. So you are losing the home game anyways.

So instead of having to make long term agreements with schools that you have no control over, having an additional conference game is set by the conference and will not change, making the life of the AD easier.

That is what I mean by that.

Everyone but the SEC plays 9 conference games now, and there are a lot of P5 schools with home and home agreements going well into the next decade. If all 14 ACC schools need to add one additional game every year, that is going to be difficult.

No, 100% inaccurate. In case you haven't noticed, Clemson usually plays 2 P5 teams already. The southern schools would not lose a home game by playing 2 P5 teams. With 8 conference games, you have 4 home/4 away. That leaves 4 OOC games. Let's say Clemson plays South Carolina & Georgia. You play 1 home and 1 away. Add that to you 4/4 conference schedule, and that gives you 5 home/5 away. Then, you add in your two cupcake games, and that gets you to 7 home /5 away games. If you go to 9 conference it alternates between 5 home/4 away, and then 4/5. That means one year, you will only end up with only 6 home/6 away.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Don't like losing a non-con P5 game and having every other year with only 6 home games and 5 conference road games. Definitely playing 9 ACC games is a poor idea for all but the TV revenue crowd.

I'd even take 10 ACC games and 0 OOC P5 games over the 9 ACC game plan. Sticking with 8 is best for Pitt fans.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

For Pitt, I want 9. I can understand why the schools with SEC rivals don't, especially in the year ND is on the schedule, but that should also make the ADs life easier.

But we are in a conference and conference mates should play each other more often than twice every 12 years.

I don't know how the vote will go, but if I had to guess right now I'd say 9 games will come of this. It is going to be difficult if you don't have a rivalry game to schedule 2 P5 games every single year for every single ACC program.

But part of the deal for the network.

Pitt's crossover games would look like this maybe:

Year 1: BC, @ FSU, @ Syr
Year 2: Clem, Syr, @ Lou
Year 3: Wake, @ NCSU, @ Syr

 

[ThePanthers]

To Topdecktiger: Yeah, you are right. I was viewing it as either or, not in addition for those schools. My bad.

To me though, it would make the lives easier for the schools w/o a built in rivalry game.

There are merits on both sides. This is going to be close again IMO.

 

[ThePanthers]

Don't like losing a non-con P5 game and having every other year with only 6 home games and 5 conference road games. Definitely playing 9 ACC games is a poor idea for all but the TV revenue crowd.

I don't know if it is a poor idea for all though. Schools like UVA, GT, UNC and Duke are only going to have FSU, Clemson, Wake and NC St come to their building once every 12 years. These are schools that have played annually for years, and saw each other more often until the past 3 seasons.

Don't forget, we are still the new guys that dont' have the roots these schools do. To me, you should play your conference foes more often, that is why you are in a conference.

But again, I also see the other side of the coin as well.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Don't like losing a non-con P5 game and having every other year with only 6 home games and 5 conference road games. Definitely playing 9 ACC games is a poor idea for all but the TV revenue crowd.

Schools without an annual rivalry game will still play 7 home games every year. Lou, FSU, Clem, and GT would be the only ones who would wind up with only 6 home games in some years. For Pitt, we'd still have 7 every year. In the years when we have 4 ACC home games, they wouldn't make us travel to ND so we'd have a home P5 or ND plus a 1AA and G5.

 

[topdecktiger]

I don't know if it is a poor idea for all though. Schools like UVA, GT, UNC and Duke are only going to have FSU, Clemson, Wake and NC St come to their building once every 12 years. These are schools that have played annually for years, and saw each other more often until the past 3 seasons.

Don't forget, we are still the new guys that dont' have the roots these schools do. To me, you should play your conference foes more often, that is why you are in a conference.

But again, I also see the other side of the coin as well.

Here's my problem with all this. There is a way to address all these concerns, without having to hurt any of the schools. Adopt the 8+2 format, and play OOC games with conference teams. For some reason, people go ape s*** at the idea of playing a conference team OOC. It's really not all that big of a deal. The conference schedules are set up in perpetuity with a rotation. There isn't going to be any way for a school to rig the system by making a tough game (say against Florida St) OOC, and thus not have to count it. That would solve the problem of not seeing certain schools frequently enough, and it would also solve the problem of making the southern schools lose a home game. The resistance to that idea is simply illogical.

 

[ThePanthers]

Here's my problem with all this. There is a way to address all these concerns, without having to hurt any of the schools. Adopt the 8+2 format, and play OOC games with conference teams. For some reason, people go ape s*** at the idea of playing a conference team OOC. It's really not all that big of a deal. The conference schedules are set up in perpetuity with a rotation. There isn't going to be any way for a school to rig the system by making a tough game (say against Florida St) OOC, and thus not have to count it. That would solve the problem of not seeing certain schools frequently enough, and it would also solve the problem of making the southern schools lose a home game. The resistance to that idea is simply illogical.

Are Clemson and FSU, the schools everyone in the Coastal wants to play more often going to schedule Pitt, VT, etc in OOC games often?

 

[topdecktiger]

Are Clemson and FSU, the schools everyone in the Coastal wants to play more often going to schedule Pitt, VT, etc in OOC games often?

They may not. I don't know. If you are basing this on playing Florida St and Clemson, then it's a bad premise to begin with.

 

[ThePanthers]

They may not. I don't know. If you are basing this on playing Florida St and Clemson, then it's a bad premise to begin with.

Why? They are in the same conference as us, but we will only see them in Pittsburgh once every 12 years. And they are two of the marquee teams fans want to see.

The point is, every school has differing agendas and what makes sense and what doesn't.

I personally think the 8plus2 and playing other ACC schools is probably going to be the best compromise, but to say looking at other alternatives is illogical is just as bad as SMF saying to just play 9 ACC games and stick with USCjr.

 

[OriginalEther]

I don't really care either way.
Though, I've said it before, if the idea is to increase the frequency of seeing teams from the other division, drop the crossover game. The only one that remotely matters is fsu/Miami.

 

[topdecktiger]

Why? They are in the same conference as us, but we will only see them in Pittsburgh once every 12 years. And they are two of the marquee teams fans want to see.

The point is, every school has differing agendas and what makes sense and what doesn't.

I personally think the 8plus2 and playing other ACC schools is probably going to be the best compromise, but to say looking at other alternatives is illogical is just as bad as SMF saying to just play 9 ACC games and stick with USCjr.

Because at first, the discussion started out that the problem was simply all the schools weren't seeing each other enough. Now, it's gotten whittled down to (paraphrasing),"We want more Clemson/Florida St." The former is a more general idea for the good of the conference as a whole. The latter is simply for the selfish benefit of individual schools. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with being "selfish." What I am saying is, if you are going to do that, then you have to allow Clemson and Florida St to be selfish also. Frankly, Clemson and Florida St get actually get hurt in this deal, whereas the other schools are simply inconvenienced.

I would have no problem if there was a rule or "agreement" that under the 8+2, Clemson and Florida St play X number of conference teams as OOC games. It would be easy to work in conference teams under that format, and still maintain 7 home games. Again, I will come back to the point. You can't let some schools pursue agendas for selfish reasons, but not let others.

To the other point. I did not say looking at other alternatives was illogical. You didn't pay attention to what I wrote. What I said was, rejecting the conference teams-as-OOC idea is illogical. It's illogical to reject a solution that could address the problems, simply because it "looks weird," or the other complaints (not by you) that have been raised against the conference-as-OOC idea.

I don't really care either way.
Though, I've said it before, if the idea is to increase the frequency of seeing teams from the other division, drop the crossover game. The only one that remotely matters is fsu/Miami.

Again, several schools are not dropping their crossover games. It doesn't matter if you don't think they mean anything. Other schools want to play them and simply aren't giving them up. You just have to accept reality.

 

[Jpripper88]

That's frankly stupid. The ACC needs good OOC games, for strength of schedule and playoff reasons. Real brilliant idea to make your best schools either give up games that help the prestige of the conference, or lose money.



No, 100% inaccurate. In case you haven't noticed, Clemson usually plays 2 P5 teams already. The southern schools would not lose a home game by playing 2 P5 teams. With 8 conference games, you have 4 home/4 away. That leaves 4 OOC games. Let's say Clemson plays South Carolina & Georgia. You play 1 home and 1 away. Add that to you 4/4 conference schedule, and that gives you 5 home/5 away. Then, you add in your two cupcake games, and that gets you to 7 home /5 away games. If you go to 9 conference it alternates between 5 home/4 away, and then 4/5. That means one year, you will only end up with only 6 home/6 away.

Except you can either schedule a neutral site in the 4/5 year or stagger it so the 4/5 years you don't play a 2nd P5 team. You don't have to play a 2nd P5 team and most top teams do not.

 

[Jpripper88]

Here's my problem with all this. There is a way to address all these concerns, without having to hurt any of the schools. Adopt the 8+2 format, and play OOC games with conference teams. For some reason, people go ape s*** at the idea of playing a conference team OOC. It's really not all that big of a deal. The conference schedules are set up in perpetuity with a rotation. There isn't going to be any way for a school to rig the system by making a tough game (say against Florida St) OOC, and thus not have to count it. That would solve the problem of not seeing certain schools frequently enough, and it would also solve the problem of making the southern schools lose a home game. The resistance to that idea is simply illogical.

Because for most of those teams it doesn't help to play anyone other than FSU or Clemson in an "OCC" ACC game. No reason to do it when people are as excited about a "OOC" ACC game against Wake as they are for a game against Marshall or Akron. The game is meaningless and the team is mediocre to bad.

 

[topdecktiger]

Except you can either schedule a neutral site in the 4/5 year or stagger it so the 4/5 years you don't play a 2nd P5 team. You don't have to play a 2nd P5 team and most top teams do not.

Staggering doesn't work. You have to "stagger" it too far out.

Most schools don't have a P5 rival OOC either. For example, Clemson gets stuck with South Carolina, no matter how good or bad they are. The 2nd P5 team gives you more odds to get a good team, rather than being locked in to the same team. To be perfectly honest, the 2nd P5 team is needed, since the ACC isn't the strongest conference in the world.

Also, another great idea for the conference, regarding the neutral site. Let's not give Clemson a chance to get Auburn, Georgia, etc. into Death Valley, where their odds of winning are much better. Great idea for the strength of the conference.

Because for most of those teams it doesn't help to play anyone other than FSU or Clemson in an "OCC" ACC game. No reason to do it when people are as excited about a "OOC" ACC game against Wake as they are for a game against Marshall or Akron. The game is meaningless and the team is mediocre to bad.

Right, and that gets to my point. You really don't care about playing "all the teams" or "developing rivalries within the conference." You just want Clemson/Florida St. Well, I have not problem with that, except you can't just make Clemson and Florida St do whatever you want. Clemson and Florida St take a financial hit losing a home game, and frankly, they shouldn't have to do that just to please you.

 

[Jpripper88]

Staggering doesn't work. You have to "stagger" it too far out.

Most schools don't have a P5 rival OOC either. For example, Clemson gets stuck with South Carolina, no matter how good or bad they are. The 2nd P5 team gives you more odds to get a good team, rather than being locked in to the same team. To be perfectly honest, the 2nd P5 team is needed, since the ACC isn't the strongest conference in the world.

Also, another great idea for the conference, regarding the neutral site. Let's not give Clemson a chance to get Auburn, Georgia, etc. into Death Valley, where their odds of winning are much better. Great idea for the strength of the conference.



Right, and that gets to my point. You really don't care about playing "all the teams" or "developing rivalries within the conference." You just want Clemson/Florida St. Well, I have not problem with that, except you can't just make Clemson and Florida St do whatever you want. Clemson and Florida St take a financial hit losing a home game, and frankly, they shouldn't have to do that just to please you.

Staggering would work. Especially with higher level programs (like Clemson and FSU now) playing in neutral site games. I think we will see more and more of those as teams go to 9 game conference schedules.

No, we don't really care about developing rivalries within conference via "OOC" ACC games and neither do Clemson or FSU. The issue at hand here is getting a challenging and intriguing schedule that sells tickets. Small, bad, out of region schools do nothing to help that, so most of the ACC schools who would be available for that are not helpful. Pitt is better off just getting a home game every year or playing teams like Iowa.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

For Pitt? 9 is a no brainer. Guarantees FSU, Clem now with ND at least once every 3 years. And Ville, NCST, BC are also credible at the expense of nothing. And if it causes some years with 6 home games? that's even better to increase demand in larger Heinz. Pitt scrambles now to find opponents and even worse with B10 going to 9 and navy full in stupid conf.

 

[topdecktiger]

Staggering would work. Especially with higher level programs (like Clemson and FSU now) playing in neutral site games. I think we will see more and more of those as teams go to 9 game conference schedules.

No, we don't really care about developing rivalries within conference via "OOC" ACC games and neither do Clemson or FSU. The issue at hand here is getting a challenging and intriguing schedule that sells tickets. Small, bad, out of region schools do nothing to help that, so most of the ACC schools who would be available for that are not helpful. Pitt is better off just getting a home game every year or playing teams like Iowa.

No, it won't work. You're forcing the neutral site thing in there. That's not what the schools want to do. They want to play 7 home games, and be able to play good teams OOC, not just the in state rivals.

Your second paragraph is my whole point. Just schedule somebody like Iowa, if all you are worried about is getting a good team to sell tickets. You can schedule Iowa, Clemson and Florida St can schedule who they want, and nobody gets hurt. Under the 9 game schedule, the southern schools do get hurt, to the tune of $5 or 6 million dollars. Besides that, it's not like you are going to get Clemson and Florida St every year anyway, even with 9 games. Most of the time, you would still be getting teams like NC State or Wake Forest anyway.

You still missed my point. If all you are worried about is playing Clemson and Florida St, you can do that without taking money out of Clemson & Florida St's pockets.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I keep hearing that voting for nine conference games is a no-brainer for Pitt but I actually strongly disagree with that sentiment.

I think our situation is much more like Louisville, Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech than it is like Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, etc.

The ACC lacks the cache of many of the other power conferences. It is never going to get the benefit of the doubt when it is up against the Pac-12, the Big Ten or especially the SEC. Therefore, it needs out of conference wins to bolster its reputation.

Even speaking about it strictly from a Pitt perspective, I think we have a much better chance than most of landing out of conference games against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, etc., based on our name recognition and recruiting territory – not to mention ease of getting in and out.

I have no idea why people are continually pushing for nine conference games? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean it is entirely possible that a Penn State or a West Virginia or even an Ohio State is going to have a hole in their schedule they are looking to fill. I just think it would be a shame if our position was, "Hey, yeah. Thanks for thinking of us, and we would love to accommodate you. However, we can't do it because we have to play that extra game against NC State."

That would be pretty dumb.

Sure, we will get more games against Florida State and Clemson. However, will also get more games against Wake Forest and Boston College. Are you really that excited for all of the extra trips to Raleigh?

And what happens if Penn State's administration changes and their attitudes towards playing an annual home and home series against Pitt changes too? What would we do we do then?

Pitt is unique in that it has two legitimately fierce rivals – neither of which are in the conference in which it competes. I'm not aware of any other school in that position? As such, I want as much scheduling flexibility as we can possibly muster.

Sign me up for 8+2 and I'll take that deal without blinking.

 

[OriginalEther]

Again, several schools are not dropping their crossover games. It doesn't matter if you don't think they mean anything. Other schools want to play them and simply aren't giving them up. You just have to accept reality.

Yeah, yeah, you've told me that before. But if the whole point of this discussion is the increase opponent frequency (i view playing Syracuse every year as a good thing, personally) dropping the crossover is the simplest and easiest way to do so.

 

[OriginalEther]

Double post

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I keep hearing that voting for nine conference games is a no-brainer for Pitt but I actually strongly disagree with that sentiment.

I think our situation is much more like Louisville, Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech than it is like Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, etc.

The ACC lacks the cache of many of the other power conferences. It is never going to get the benefit of the doubt when it is up against the Pac-12, the Big Ten or especially the SEC. Therefore, it needs out of conference wins to bolster its reputation.

Even speaking about it strictly from a Pitt perspective, I think we have a much better chance than most of landing out of conference games against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, etc., based on our name recognition and recruiting territory – not to mention ease of getting in and out.

I have no idea why people are continually pushing for nine conference games? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean it is entirely possible that a Penn State or a West Virginia or even an Ohio State is going to have a hole in their schedule they are looking to fill. I just think it would be a shame if our position was, "Hey, yeah. Thanks for thinking of us, and we would love to accommodate you. However, we can't do it because we have to play that extra game against NC State."

That would be pretty dumb.

Sure, we will get more games against Florida State and Clemson. However, will also get more games against Wake Forest and Boston College. Are you really that excited for all of the extra trips to Raleigh?

And what happens if Penn State's administration changes and their attitudes towards playing an annual home and home series against Pitt changes too? What would we do we do then?

Pitt is unique in that it has two legitimately fierce rivals – neither of which are in the conference in which it competes. I'm not aware of any other school in that position? As such, I want as much scheduling flexibility as we can possibly muster.

Sign me up for 8+2 and I'll take that deal without blinking.

What is stopping Pitt from playing 9 conference games, ND and an 11th game vs PSU, WVU, OSU, Mich, Texas, etc?

Why would Pitt stop trying to land those game? Its not like we have to worry about making the "NCAA Tournament." Its only a 4 team playoff, one Pitt will probably never make. So, if PSU or OSU want to play us, giving us 11 P5s in a year and only 6 home games, you do it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No, it won't work. You're forcing the neutral site thing in there. That's not what the schools want to do. They want to play 7 home games, and be able to play good teams OOC, not just the in state rivals.

Your second paragraph is my whole point. Just schedule somebody like Iowa, if all you are worried about is getting a good team to sell tickets. You can schedule Iowa, Clemson and Florida St can schedule who they want, and nobody gets hurt. Under the 9 game schedule, the southern schools do get hurt, to the tune of $5 or 6 million dollars. Besides that, it's not like you are going to get Clemson and Florida St every year anyway, even with 9 games. Most of the time, you would still be getting teams like NC State or Wake Forest anyway.

You still missed my point. If all you are worried about is playing Clemson and Florida St, you can do that without taking money out of Clemson & Florida St's pockets.

9 is going to pass but I do understand the concern from FSU, Clemson, etc. It is going to cause them to play only 6 home games in some years. As a compromise, I believe the ACC should pass a rule that compensates teams for a lost home game under the new 9 game plan.

So, if Clemson ends up playing 9, ND, SC, and a 1-AA with only 6 of those at home, they get a check for the rough equivalent of lost home game revenue. This money would come straight from the league office before all revenue is totaled up and divided by the 15 schools.

This would also help a school like Pitt should we ever begin playing PSU or WVU every year. Of course, our check for losing a home game with a G5 would be much lower than Clemson's for losing a home game with Appalachian State. But I think that's the best compromise because 9 has the votes to pass but I dont like the idea of totally screwing FSU and Clemson. They (and GT/Lou) should be compensated for playing only 6 home games.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, it won't work. You're forcing the neutral site thing in there. That's not what the schools want to do. They want to play 7 home games, and be able to play good teams OOC, not just the in state rivals.

Your second paragraph is my whole point. Just schedule somebody like Iowa, if all you are worried about is getting a good team to sell tickets. You can schedule Iowa, Clemson and Florida St can schedule who they want, and nobody gets hurt. Under the 9 game schedule, the southern schools do get hurt, to the tune of $5 or 6 million dollars. Besides that, it's not like you are going to get Clemson and Florida St every year anyway, even with 9 games. Most of the time, you would still be getting teams like NC State or Wake Forest anyway.

You still missed my point. If all you are worried about is playing Clemson and Florida St, you can do that without taking money out of Clemson & Florida St's pockets.

Yeah, but why should everyone else really care what is the ideal for FSU and Clemson? They can't go anywhere for 20 years and it is better for every other school in conference.

 

[Jpripper88]

9 is going to pass but I do understand the concern from FSU, Clemson, etc. It is going to cause them to play only 6 home games in some years. As a compromise, I believe the ACC should pass a rule that compensates teams for a lost home game under the new 9 game plan.

So, if Clemson ends up playing 9, ND, SC, and a 1-AA with only 6 of those at home, they get a check for the rough equivalent of lost home game revenue. This money would come straight from the league office before all revenue is totaled up and divided by the 15 schools.

This would also help a school like Pitt should we ever begin playing PSU or WVU every year. Of course, our check for losing a home game with a G5 would be much lower than Clemson's for losing a home game with Appalachian State. But I think that's the best compromise because 9 has the votes to pass but I dont like the idea of totally screwing FSU and Clemson. They (and GT/Lou) should be compensated for playing only 6 home games.

They only play 6 home games if they choose to only play 6 home games. Hell, they could make their rivalries neutral site and better control the revenue distribution from those.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

What is stopping Pitt from playing 9 conference games, ND and an 11th game vs PSU, WVU, OSU, Mich, Texas, etc?

Why would Pitt stop trying to land those game? Its not like we have to worry about making the "NCAA Tournament." Its only a 4 team playoff, one Pitt will probably never make. So, if PSU or OSU want to play us, giving us 11 P5s in a year and only 6 home games, you do it.

Similarly, what is stopping Pitt from playing eight ACC games and having three OOC P5 games - for all the reasons you stated?

We can do this any way we want. However, you have to set up those OOC games years in advance and buying your way out of games can get expensive.

Look, I don't hate the idea of playing nine conference games - it can be a positive for the program. I just think eight league games with two power fives is a better deal for Pitt, given our unique circumstance

Remember, our three biggest rivals - Penn State, West Virginia and Notre Dame - are not (football) members of the ACC. Also, if Michigan or Ohio State wanted to play us, those games would mean more to our fans than any ACC game.

Pitt needs as much scheduling flexibility as possible, IMO. Also, the ACC needs OOC wins for credibility's sake. If we just cannibalize each other, we are going to be slotted fourth – at best.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

They only play 6 home games if they choose to only play 6 home games. Hell, they could make their rivalries neutral site and better control the revenue distribution from those.

In a 2 year period, Florida and FSU would make more money hosting 1 UF/FSU game than playing twice in Orlando or Jacksonville, splitting the gate down the middle so the neutral site thing makes no sense. Same goes for Clemson/South Carolina and Kentucky/Louisville. Given that GT's stadium is small, it could make sense for GT and UGa to do the neutral site thing in the new Falcons' stadium every year but that wouldn't help all that much. GT would get 6.5 home games every year instead of 7 home games in some years and 6 home games in some years.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

9 is going to pass but I do understand the concern from FSU, Clemson, etc. It is going to cause them to play only 6 home games in some years. As a compromise, I believe the ACC should pass a rule that compensates teams for a lost home game under the new 9 game plan.

So, if Clemson ends up playing 9, ND, SC, and a 1-AA with only 6 of those at home, they get a check for the rough equivalent of lost home game revenue. This money would come straight from the league office before all revenue is totaled up and divided by the 15 schools.

This would also help a school like Pitt should we ever begin playing PSU or WVU every year. Of course, our check for losing a home game with a G5 would be much lower than Clemson's for losing a home game with Appalachian State. But I think that's the best compromise because 9 has the votes to pass but I dont like the idea of totally screwing FSU and Clemson. They (and GT/Lou) should be compensated for playing only 6 home games.

They could easily do this for them by adjusting the bowl payouts or something.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

They could easily do this for them by adjusting the bowl payouts or something.

No need to adjust bowl payouts. Just take the money off the top. Lets say there is $400 million to distribute at the end of the year, if FSU and GT played only 6 home games, you take $5 million off the top and give it to FSU, take $3 million and give it to GT for the less valuable lost home game. Then divide the other $395 million the normal way.

 

[Jpripper88]

In a 2 year period, Florida and FSU would make more money hosting 1 UF/FSU game than playing twice in Orlando or Jacksonville, splitting the gate down the middle so the neutral site thing makes no sense. Same goes for Clemson/South Carolina and Kentucky/Louisville. Given that GT's stadium is small, it could make sense for GT and UGa to do the neutral site thing in the new Falcons' stadium every year but that wouldn't help all that much. GT would get 6.5 home games every year instead of 7 home games in some years and 6 home games in some years.

Agreed, but it would provide more even revenue distribution when there is a move to the 9 game ACC schedule. It is their call on whether that makes the most sense.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Similarly, what is stopping Pitt from playing eight ACC games and having three OOC P5 games - for all the reasons you stated?.

Because with the B10, B12, and P12 playing 9 games and the SEC only playing 1 P5, its going to be almost to schedule 2 P5s, let alone 3.