Poll: 8 or 9 league games

[ThePanthers]

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.
.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Every school has it's agenda. For me, I want to play every ACC school more often. But if we do 8 + 2 and leave it up to the ACC schools to schedule each other out of conference, I'm sure not all schools are going to do it, especially FSU and Clemson. Which is fine, but saying that they should go about it as OOC games for the schools that want to play the other schools more often, and then not all schools agree on it defeats the purpose.

As for the missing home game, you could miss $3M every other year you have 6 home games due to scheduling, but in place make possibly $10M during the 2 year period on the ACCN, because this is what is dictating this.

I also see Doc's point in that we have WVU and PSU as rivals that we'd love to have long term, and if we go to 9 games, schedule one long term, then we run into the same issue as the southern schools. That is why I believe Pitt voted for 8 games last time.

Either way, however this turns out, I do think it will be for the better. Not everyone is going to be happy, but at the end of the day, we are either forced to play a better schedule, or we get to play our conference mates more often.

 

[revampedpanthers]

what complicates matters is ND. I understand FSU's issue with 9. They will play FL OOC in years where they play ND thats 11 P5 games. I would rather see 8+2 for Pitt because it allows us to schedule schools like PSU and WVU, it also allows us to get to see schools like Iowa, OK st and TN. Those are games that aren't happening if we go to 9 very often. There would be only room for one P5 OOC every year and that's assuming we only play one "warm up " game in years where ND is on schedule. If it wasn't for ND then you could go to 9+1 much easier and still have your 2 "easy" wins.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

There's still room and more important you can tell recruits FSU,Clem,ND guaranteed. 8+2 would work, just don't see how logistically can be done especially juggling psu,wvu.

 

[Begbie_Nole]

ACC has such diverse programs in terms of size, capability, location etc that 8 games offers flexibility for the Dukes of the world to have a weak OOC slate and add a NW and FSU to play OlMiss and Florida. It works well for the ACC. Also helps with Pitt wanting to play PSU and WV or another every year. Makes CFB fun again.

 

[ThePanthers]

Regardless, at the end of the day, I think everyones schedule is going to get better going forward.

And the more I think about it, the 8plus2 is probably going to pass for flexibility sake.

 

[topdecktiger]

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.

And why should Clemson and Florida state care what is ideal for other schools?

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.

No, it wouldn't provide more revenue. Clemson and Florida St don't have a problem with attendance. Those schools have the top two attendance figures in the league. For example, Clemson can get 80,000 even for a game with somebody like Furman or Coastal Carolina. The 9th ACC game isn't going to be some big attendance (or financial) boon for Clemson and Florida St.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Every school has it's agenda. For me, I want to play every ACC school more often. But if we do 8 + 2 and leave it up to the ACC schools to schedule each other out of conference, I'm sure not all schools are going to do it, especially FSU and Clemson. Which is fine, but saying that they should go about it as OOC games for the schools that want to play the other schools more often, and then not all schools agree on it defeats the purpose.

As for the missing home game, you could miss $3M every other year you have 6 home games due to scheduling, but in place make possibly $10M during the 2 year period on the ACCN, because this is what is dictating this.

I also see Doc's point in that we have WVU and PSU as rivals that we'd love to have long term, and if we go to 9 games, schedule one long term, then we run into the same issue as the southern schools. That is why I believe Pitt voted for 8 games last time.

Either way, however this turns out, I do think it will be for the better. Not everyone is going to be happy, but at the end of the day, we are either forced to play a better schedule, or we get to play our conference mates more often.

Playing games OOC doesn't defeat the purpose. If you want to play all the ACC schools more often, then that can be accomplished by OOC games. But, as I pointed out, the argument got changed from playing all the ACC schools to specifically playing Clemson and Florida St. If you are just trying to play more ACC schools in general, then OOC can easily accomplish that. It's only when you specifically want Clemson and Florida St that OOC isn't as effective, which is my point. If it's really about playing Clemson and Florida St, then don't use the argument about all the schools playing each other.

However, I would have no problem if everyone was mandated to play ACC schools as OOC. That would be fine. The problem with 9+1 is that there is no flexibility, because it happens every year. With 8+2+OOC, Clemson, for example, could schedule some ACC teams OOC most years, and skip the years where it would cost them a home game. I would have no problem with that being a rule.

I reject the idea about making up the difference via ACC Network revenue. You are saying that even if Clemson loses $5 million (not $3 million) on a home game, they make it up with $10 million from a network. I reject that because with 8+2, Clemson can keep the $5 million from the home game AND get the $10 million from the network. Frankly, it's a little disingenuous for the other schools to suggest this, because they aren't the ones losing money.

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.

You don't know 9+1 is going to pass. That's not certain at all. I would agree that it would be acceptable if the southern schools were compensated for losing home games.

 

[ThePanthers]

And why should Clemson and Florida state care what is ideal for other schools?

Because this is a conference and successful ones have all the schools working together for the greater good of all the schools. Ask the Big XII how it works when only the top dogs look out for themselves.

That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Just playing devils advocate because there are multiple concerns going both ways.

 

[topdecktiger]

Because this is a conference and successful ones have all the schools working together for the greater good of all the schools. Ask the Big XII how it works when only the top dogs look out for themselves.

That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Just playing devils advocate because there are multiple concerns going both ways.

But that works both ways. That's the point I was making to the other poster. He said (paraphrasing), why should the other schools care about what Clemson and Florida St want? Well, that's just as much against the greater good as well. If someone says why should the other schools care what Clemson and Florida St want, then it's perfectly reasonable to respond why should Clemson and Florida St care what the other schools want. The greater good works both ways.

Clemson and Florida St are the two schools carrying the flag for the ACC right now. They have the best chance of making the playoffs. Making them give up a quality OOC game does not help the greater good of the conference. Likewise, making them give up money does not help the greater good of the conference. Keep in mind, Clemson and Florida St (along with Georgia Tech and Louisville) have to compete for recruits with SEC schools that are much more well funded. It doesn't do the conference any good to put the league's premier schools at even more of a disadvantage to SEC schools. That's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[PushupMan]

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.

It looks weird because it IS weird.... For the fans of the two teams playing, it's no big deal - they follow their teams very closely and know well ahead of time that, for example, Wake Forest and North Carolina are going to play two non-conference games in 2019 and 2021, while in 2022 their game will count in the conference standings.

If it's only Wake Forest and North Carolina doing it for two games once a decade, that's not going to be too bad. But if all or nearly all ACC schools do it every year, it's going to get very confusing. Not for fans who follow each school closely .... on a national scale, if many teams in the ACC were to decide to do this, then the national media would be confused (Clemson at Pitt is a league game in 2021, but the Pitt at Clemson game in 2022 is not. Or is it the other way around?). They would have to keep track of which 56 matchups of ACC versus ACC teams count in the conference standings and which 10 other matchups do not count ... and as a result you just know that the ACC would take a PR hit in the media for scheduling that way.

Unless you are of the opinion that there is no such thing as bad publicity, it's just not going to be a good thing to do.

 

[topdecktiger]

It looks weird because it IS weird.... For the fans of the two teams playing, it's no big deal - they follow their teams very closely and know well ahead of time that, for example, Wake Forest and North Carolina are going to play two non-conference games in 2019 and 2021, while in 2022 their game will count in the conference standings.

If it's only Wake Forest and North Carolina doing it for two games once a decade, that's not going to be too bad. But if all or nearly all ACC schools do it every year, it's going to get very confusing. Not for fans who follow each school closely .... on a national scale, if many teams in the ACC were to decide to do this, then the national media would be confused (Clemson at Pitt is a league game in 2021, but the Pitt at Clemson game in 2022 is not. Or is it the other way around?). They would have to keep track of which 56 matchups of ACC versus ACC teams count in the conference standings and which 10 other matchups do not count ... and as a result you just know that the ACC would take a PR hit in the media for scheduling that way.

Unless you are of the opinion that there is no such thing as bad publicity, it's just not going to be a good thing to do.

1) It's not confusing.
2) It's not going to be bad publicity.
3) People don't have to keep track of anything.
4) The national media isn't going to be confused either. The ACC schedule is set up by a rotation years in advance. There is no confusion about which game is OOC.

This is my point. People go ape **** over something that is minor. It simply wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And why should Clemson and Florida state care what is ideal for other schools?



No, it wouldn't provide more revenue. Clemson and Florida St don't have a problem with attendance. Those schools have the top two attendance figures in the league. For example, Clemson can get 80,000 even for a game with somebody like Furman or Coastal Carolina. The 9th ACC game isn't going to be some big attendance (or financial) boon for Clemson and Florida St.



Playing games OOC doesn't defeat the purpose. If you want to play all the ACC schools more often, then that can be accomplished by OOC games. But, as I pointed out, the argument got changed from playing all the ACC schools to specifically playing Clemson and Florida St. If you are just trying to play more ACC schools in general, then OOC can easily accomplish that. It's only when you specifically want Clemson and Florida St that OOC isn't as effective, which is my point. If it's really about playing Clemson and Florida St, then don't use the argument about all the schools playing each other.

However, I would have no problem if everyone was mandated to play ACC schools as OOC. That would be fine. The problem with 9+1 is that there is no flexibility, because it happens every year. With 8+2+OOC, Clemson, for example, could schedule some ACC teams OOC most years, and skip the years where it would cost them a home game. I would have no problem with that being a rule.

I reject the idea about making up the difference via ACC Network revenue. You are saying that even if Clemson loses $5 million (not $3 million) on a home game, they make it up with $10 million from a network. I reject that because with 8+2, Clemson can keep the $5 million from the home game AND get the $10 million from the network. Frankly, it's a little disingenuous for the other schools to suggest this, because they aren't the ones losing money.



You don't know 9+1 is going to pass. That's not certain at all. I would agree that it would be acceptable if the southern schools were compensated for losing home games.

It is ridiculous, frankly for Pitt to be in the ACC but only get a home game with FSU or Clemson every 12 years. Those are marquee teams IN OUR LEAGUE. We have to play them more.

I understand their concern but their has to be a compromise. 8+2 isnt going to work because with 9 game schedules in other leagues, there wont be enough games to go around. You know how difficult it will be for Duke or Wake to schedule OOC games now?

The ACC will nees to play 28 P5s. Take away 5 ND games plus UF, SC, UGa, and UK, thats 19 games that need scheduled.

There are only 54 teams (assuming B12 goes to 14) out their to schedule. Of those 54, 4 SEC teams already play ACC teams so you are down to 50. Iowa plays ISU so that's 48. Utah plays BYU so thats 46. Throw in the usual Week 1 Bowl games and it gets whittled down even further. The likelihood that the ACC will be able to schedule enough P5s is in question and schools like Pitt could wind up playing Indiana or Purdue or Kansas and what's the point of that.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Keep in mind that an additional conference game means (7) more losses for the conference and quite frankly could be the difference in mediocre programs reaching a bowl or not. So that's lost revenue right there if Duke and NC State miss out on bowls because they lost to Miami in a ninth game instead of playing Troy that week.

Furthermore, the conference already has enough trouble getting a team into the playoff as it is. Why on earth would you want to add an additional game and give the elite teams one more potential slip-up they have to avoid. Read the article on ESPN about the Big 10 coaches' reactions after learning they'll play 9 conference games starting this season. They hate it. The coaches hate it, especially the coaches of more mediocre programs like Indiana who was able to secure a bowl berth last season, solely because of their weak OOC scheduling.

Moving to a 9-game conference schedule is stupid. Yet again, this is all crap that could be avoided if the schools (via the NCAA) would remove its requirement on divisions and round-robin play within a division. If the ACC was allowed to go to a 3+5 setup, Pitt would play Clemson and FSU every two seasons, and would get each of those teams in Heinz Field every four seasons at worst. THAT would create more marquee conference matchups for the ACC Network. Unfortunately, other conferences (Big 10 I think) blocked that move when the ACC proposed it. Moving to 9 conference games is a messy solution to a problem and ignores much cleaner, easier, and better solutions to the same problem.

 

[ThePanthers]

Keep in mind that an additional conference game means (7) more losses for the conference and quite frankly could be the difference in mediocre programs reaching a bowl or not. So that's lost revenue right there if Duke and NC State miss out on bowls because they lost to Miami in a ninth game instead of playing Troy that week.

Furthermore, the conference already has enough trouble getting a team into the playoff as it is. Why on earth would you want to add an additional game and give the elite teams one more potential slip-up they have to avoid. Read the article on ESPN about the Big 10 coaches' reactions after learning they'll play 9 conference games starting this season. They hate it. The coaches hate it, especially the coaches of more mediocre programs like Indiana who was able to secure a bowl berth last season, solely because of their weak OOC scheduling.

Moving to a 9-game conference schedule is stupid. Yet again, this is all crap that could be avoided if the schools (via the NCAA) would remove its requirement on divisions and round-robin play within a division. If the ACC was allowed to go to a 3+5 setup, Pitt would play Clemson and FSU every two seasons, and would get each of those teams in Heinz Field every four seasons at worst. THAT would create more marquee conference matchups for the ACC Network. Unfortunately, other conferences (Big 10 I think) blocked that move when the ACC proposed it. Moving to 9 conference games is a messy solution to a problem and ignores much cleaner, easier, and better solutions to the same problem.

It would also mean 7 more guaranteed wins. And how has the conference had enough trouble getting into the playoffs when they haven't missed it yet?

If you haven't noticed, a loss to a P5 team is look upon more favorable than a win over an FCS or bottom level FBS team in the view of the playoff committee. That is why UNC had a lot of issues last year and FSU the year before. They had weak OOC schedules.

People have to change that mindset.

Again, I see positives and negatives on both sides, and for various teams. It's a good discussion. Will be interesting to see what the compromise is tomorrow.

 

[PittPanthers90]

Logically the 9+1 model HAS to be the way to go:

Look at N Carolina, they had P5 teams drop agreements to play and could only find 1-AA (FCS) teams to fill in, what happens when they can't get the CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED P5 team to replace one that dropped out?

For the teams with the SEC rivalry games:
The ACC makes sure they get the 5 home conference games in years they play their rival away. This gives them a 5 home/5 away to start. Only in years when they have to play ND away will they be forced down to a 6 home/6 away season. Every other year they could buy their 2 home games to get the 7 home / 5 away split.

Yes they will have tougher seasons those years, but SOS is an important factor in playoff selection, as such this can only BETTER the league.

8+2 leaves teams and the league vulnerable contractually, and as such is an illogical proposition.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Ha, it might be a 7-7 vote. Who's the tiebreaker? Swofford? Oh,god.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

It would also mean 7 more guaranteed wins. And how has the conference had enough trouble getting into the playoffs when they haven't missed it yet?

Because Clemson and FSU have each run the table once. A one-loss ACC Champion would absolutely be talked about ad nauseam as not good enough to make the playoff because the conference doesn't get a lot of credit.

If you haven't noticed, a loss to a P5 team is look upon more favorable than a win over an FCS or bottom level FBS team in the view of the playoff committee.

That is not true 100% of the time, not even close.

That is why UNC had a lot of issues last year and FSU the year before. They had weak OOC schedules.

People have to change that mindset.

No, our two FCS teams on the schedule last year was because of several factors not related to 9- vs. 8-game conference slate. First of all, when that schedule was set, the playoff didn't even exist yet. It's sorta disingenuous for the CFB Playoff Committee to judge out-of-conference strength of schedule until like 2018 because all these OOC schedules teams are playing were created before the playoff even existed. Furthermore, other P5 teams have to WANT to play you in addition to you wanting to play them. We had Tennessee and Ohio State scheduled for home-and-home the past couple seasons and future coming up couple seasons. Those would've been nice games right? Welp, Tennessee bailed on us because they're pussies, and Ohio State bailed (we would've gone to Columbus in 2017 I believe) when the Big 10 announced they were moving to a 9-game conference schedule **see what a 9-conference game slate does to OOC scheduling!**

Carolina plays two FCS schools again this season, and again this was set in stone before the playoff ever existed. We're working hard to rectify it for the future (we've scheduled a home-and-home with Cal and a home-and-home with UCF), but any additions now won't be seen for multiple seasons to come.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Bottom line is 9-game conference schedule will mean the majority of ACC schools will be reluctant to schedule lots of marquee out-of-conference games -- they'll schedule the bare number of minimum FBS they have to per season and be done with it, which sucks for the fans. Sure, maybe Pitt won't do that and will schedule WVU and PSU in addition to a 9-game slate, but most schools will not do that. The Southern schools crave the seven home games, and a 9-game slate makes that nearly impossible, especially when you factor in the ND scheduling agreement.

I have no clue how our AD Bubba Cunningham will vote, but I really hope that the 8-game slate remains when all is said and done. Also....

Ha, it might be a 7-7 vote. Who's the tiebreaker? Swofford? Oh,god.

Keep propping up that 'Swofford screwed Clemson' myth if it makes you feel better. It is a falsity, plain and simple. Research it.

 

[revampedpanthers]

If they stay at 8 they should seriously consider dropping the crossover rivalry game. That would allow schools to play the other division opponents more often instead of every 6 years vs clemson and fsu for Pitt it would make it every 3 years(if my quick math is correct) Sure some of those crossovers are important for some teams but they could schedule those as OOC if they wanted.

 

[ThePanthers]

Because Clemson and FSU have each run the table once. A one-loss ACC Champion would absolutely be talked about ad nauseam as not good enough to make the playoff because the conference doesn't get a lot of credit.


That is not true 100% of the time, not even close.


No, our two FCS teams on the schedule last year was because of several factors not related to 9- vs. 8-game conference slate. First of all, when that schedule was set, the playoff didn't even exist yet. It's sorta disingenuous for the CFB Playoff Committee to judge out-of-conference strength of schedule until like 2018 because all these OOC schedules teams are playing were created before the playoff even existed. Furthermore, other P5 teams have to WANT to play you in addition to you wanting to play them. We had Tennessee and Ohio State scheduled for home-and-home the past couple seasons and future coming up couple seasons. Those would've been nice games right? Welp, Tennessee bailed on us because they're pussies, and Ohio State bailed (we would've gone to Columbus in 2017 I believe) when the Big 10 announced they were moving to a 9-game conference schedule **see what a 9-conference game slate does to OOC scheduling!**

Carolina plays two FCS schools again this season, and again this was set in stone before the playoff ever existed. We're working hard to rectify it for the future (we've scheduled a home-and-home with Cal and a home-and-home with UCF), but any additions now won't be seen for multiple seasons to come.

So basically you are saying it is difficult to schedule power 5 teams ooc since all but the sec is going to play 9 games. You've just made an argument for what you are arguing against.

The playoff committee made huge stinks about fcs opponents. I don't know what you were following. It was a huge knock against FSU two years ago. Askarma Oregon abouthe good losses.

There is no evidence what so ever about the ACC Champion having trouble getting in. The is all kook talk show and Internet garbage. If acc champ is considered one of the top 4 teams even with one loss they will get in.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

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.

I think that's overstated, I really do. Everyone is trying to bolster their schedule so they are all motivated. I think 8+2 is emanantly achievable. I also think it's best for Pitt.

 

[topdecktiger]

It is ridiculous, frankly for Pitt to be in the ACC but only get a home game with FSU or Clemson every 12 years. Those are marquee teams IN OUR LEAGUE. We have to play them more.

I understand their concern but their has to be a compromise. 8+2 isnt going to work because with 9 game schedules in other leagues, there wont be enough games to go around. You know how difficult it will be for Duke or Wake to schedule OOC games now?

The ACC will nees to play 28 P5s. Take away 5 ND games plus UF, SC, UGa, and UK, thats 19 games that need scheduled.

There are only 54 teams (assuming B12 goes to 14) out their to schedule. Of those 54, 4 SEC teams already play ACC teams so you are down to 50. Iowa plays ISU so that's 48. Utah plays BYU so thats 46. Throw in the usual Week 1 Bowl games and it gets whittled down even further. The likelihood that the ACC will be able to schedule enough P5s is in question and schools like Pitt could wind up playing Indiana or Purdue or Kansas and what's the point of that.

What you are talking about isn't a compromise. In a compromise, BOTH sides have to give up something. So tell me, what is Pitt giving up? Virginia Tech? Duke? None of those schools are giving up anything. You're asking Clemson, Florida St, Georgia Tech, and Louisville (who happen to be the most prominent football schools), to either give up several million dollars, or give up a prominent OOC game. Sorry, that's not a compromise. That's completely one-sided. The only way 9+1 is acceptable is if the conference financially compensates the southern schools for losing a home game.

If Pitt winds up playing Purdue or Kansas OOC, that's no different than playing Wake Forest or NC State in the 9th game. That's who you would be playing in the 9th game most of the time, not Clemson and Florida St.

You don't have to play Clemson and Florida St, at the expense of those schools consistently losing millions of dollars in a season. Sorry, you can stuff that in the garbage. Again, if the league compensates the team for losing a home game, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, no way.

There is no evidence what so ever about the ACC Champion having trouble getting in.

That's not entirely true. Florida St. wasn't a complete lock in 2014. They were undefeated, and dropped down to 4th, before moving back to 3rd the final week.

Logically the 9+1 model HAS to be the way to go:

Look at N Carolina, they had P5 teams drop agreements to play and could only find 1-AA (FCS) teams to fill in, what happens when they can't get the CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED P5 team to replace one that dropped out?

For the teams with the SEC rivalry games:
The ACC makes sure they get the 5 home conference games in years they play their rival away. This gives them a 5 home/5 away to start. Only in years when they have to play ND away will they be forced down to a 6 home/6 away season. Every other year they could buy their 2 home games to get the 7 home / 5 away split.

Yes they will have tougher seasons those years, but SOS is an important factor in playoff selection, as such this can only BETTER the league.

8+2 leaves teams and the league vulnerable contractually, and as such is an illogical proposition.

Your proposal to get to 7/5 simply doesn't work mathematically. Notre Dame isn't the problem. Notre Dame is actually easier to deal with, because that's only one game, not a home-and-home. I'll illustrate it for you. Let's assume a 9 game conference schedule, and Clemson playing home-and-home with Auburn.

Ok, year one, is 5 home/4 away. South Carolina is home, and at Auburn. So, that puts you at 6/5. Then you add in a scrub team, and that gets you to 7/5. So far, so good.

Now the next year, we are at 4/5. Auburn is home, but South Carolina is road, so that 5-6. Even with a scrub team, that's 6-6, so you've lost a 7th game.

Ok, so what if we don't stagger them? Let's start with a 4/5 year this time. Auburn and South Carolina are both at home, so that gives up 6/5. Now add in a scrub, and we are at 7/5. Good, right? ell no. The next year, both are road games. You are in a 5/4 year, so that's 5/6. Again, add in a scrub, and it's only 6/6.

So what if reverse that? In a 5/4 year, both Auburn and USC are home games. That puts you at 7/4. You can add in a scrub, and now you're at 8/4. That works, right?

Nope, it doesn't. Next year is a 4/5 year. Auburn and USC are both road games, so that's 4/7. Now with our scrub, that only gets us to 5/7. So now, not only does Clemson still lose a home game, they have to play one year with only 5, and seven road games. I'm sure Dabo will be thrilled about that.

That's the problem. It simply doesn't mathematically work.

 

[ThePanthers]

FSU was not a lock because they had 2 fcs teams on their schedule and struggled in the majority of their games. Had nothing to do with them being in the ACC.

That 2013 team would have been #1 as was Clemson last year. There were many other factors. Being in the ACC was not one of them.

Hell, there are some predicting both get into the playoffs this year.

 

[ThePanthers]

What are the southern schools giving up in the 8 plus 2 model? Honest question.

 

[Jpripper88]

And why should Clemson and Florida state care what is ideal for other schools?



No, it wouldn't provide more revenue. Clemson and Florida St don't have a problem with attendance. Those schools have the top two attendance figures in the league. For example, Clemson can get 80,000 even for a game with somebody like Furman or Coastal Carolina. The 9th ACC game isn't going to be some big attendance (or financial) boon for Clemson and Florida St.

They shouldn't care, but the votes are what matter.

You skipped over the entire point of the comment and thread, which is evening the distribution yearly. If the worry is losing a home game every once in a while, but Clemson draws the same no matter the opponent then there is no issue. Just schedule an extra buy a win or neutral site or stagger that year instead of a P5 road game. Should be no problem.

Many, many, many series are staggered over years and not back to back. It isn't that hard. Not sure why you are caught up in that being so difficult. You don't need to play 2 P5 teams every year OOC anyway, especially under the new system of 4 playoff teams and only 5 conferences.

 

[topdecktiger]

What are the southern schools giving up in the 8 plus 2 model? Honest question.

Nobody is giving up anything with 8+2. The other schools (Pitt, Virginia Tech, etc.) are not giving up a single thing in 8+2. With 8+2, everything would be exactly the same as it is now. You can't say Pitt is "giving up" games against Clemson and Florida St, because you aren't getting those now anyway. If it stays at 8+2, Pitt doesn't give up any games, any money, any scheduling. Nothing. However, with 9+1, the southern schools are giving up money or P5 games. The other schools give up nothing either way.

They shouldn't care, but the votes are what matter.

You skipped over the entire point of the comment and thread, which is evening the distribution yearly. If the worry is losing a home game every once in a while, but Clemson draws the same no matter the opponent then there is no issue. Just schedule an extra buy a win or neutral site or stagger that year instead of a P5 road game. Should be no problem.

Many, many, many series are staggered over years and not back to back. It isn't that hard. Not sure why you are caught up in that being so difficult. You don't need to play 2 P5 teams every year OOC anyway, especially under the new system of 4 playoff teams and only 5 conferences.

No, it doesn't work that way. You can't "just schedule an extra buy win" for "that year." The problem comes up every year. Here's how it works. You alternate between 5 home/4 away, and vice versa. South Carolina is an annual game. So, here's the problem.

If South Carolina is a road game during your 5/4 years, that means both your other OOC games have to be home games to reach 7. Conversely, both OOC games have to be home games during your 4/5 year to reach 7. Well, guess what? If both OOC games have to be home during 5/4 and 4/5, you could never play a road game OOC. Staggering wouldn't be possible there.

The only other option is to make South Carolina a road game during your during the 4/5 year. That means, one year you would have 6 home/6 away. The following year, you would end up with 8 home/6 away. Well, here's the problem. How do you stagger that? Your only option is to play all your road games during the 8/4 years, making them 7/5 instead. Well, problem there is, you still lost a home game. You went from 6/6 first year to 7/5 second year. That still coming up a game short. See? It's just mathematically impossible. You can't even stagger the games and always get 7. No matter how you slice it, Clemson is going to lose home games by going to 9+1.

Now as to your comment about the playoffs, that's ridiculous. The fact that you have 5 conferences and only 4 spots means that you need more quality OOC games, not fewer. The ACC doesn't exactly have the best reputation in the world. You can't count on them getting the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to a team from the SEC, Big Ten, etc. You also can't count on Clemson and Florida St going undefeated every year. That's too high of a bar to have to maintain every season. At some point, the ACC champ is going to have a loss, and they are going to need every data point they can get. Playing a bunch of mid-major schools OOC isn't going to cut it.

 

[ThePanthers]

I disagree that nobody is giving up anything in the 8 plus 2. There are schools that was the to play their long time rivals more often that are typically bigger draws for them, hence why there are schools pushing for 9. They would be giving up the ability to do that probaby for a long time.

Another quick question. That 5 million you are saying the southern schools will lose for home games. Is that net or gross.

 

[topdecktiger]

I disagree that nobody is giving up anything in the 8 plus 2. There are schools that was the to play their long time rivals more often that are typically bigger draws for them, hence why there are schools pushing for 9. They would be giving up the ability to do that probaby for a long time.

Another quick question. That 5 million you are saying the southern schools will lose for home games. Is that net or gross.

The other schools simply aren't giving up anything. For one, there aren't a lot of rivals who aren't playing each other. The only real rivals who aren't playing yearly are NC State/Duke, and North Carolina/Wake Forest. Two, they aren't "giving up" those games anyway, because they aren't being played now. You can't give up something if you don't have it in the first place. The southern schools have the money in their hands now. The southern schools have the P5 games in their hands now. Again, if it goes to 8+2, then Pitt's schedule doesn't look any different than it does now. They don't lose a game that they are playing now. They don't lose any money that they are getting now. For Pitt (who I'm using as a stand for all the "other" schools), 8+2 is just status quo. 9+1 is bonus. For the southern schools, 8+2 is status quo, but 9+1 is a net loss.

On the $5 million, that's net, not gross. Louisville and Georgia Tech probably don't get that much, but Clemson and Florida St absolutely do.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The other schools simply aren't giving up anything. For one, there aren't a lot of rivals who aren't playing each other. The only real rivals who aren't playing yearly are NC State/Duke, and North Carolina/Wake Forest. Two, they aren't "giving up" those games anyway, because they aren't being played now. You can't give up something if you don't have it in the first place. The southern schools have the money in their hands now. The southern schools have the P5 games in their hands now. Again, if it goes to 8+2, then Pitt's schedule doesn't look any different than it does now. They don't lose a game that they are playing now. They don't lose any money that they are getting now. For Pitt (who I'm using as a stand for all the "other" schools), 8+2 is just status quo. 9+1 is bonus. For the southern schools, 8+2 is status quo, but 9+1 is a net loss.

On the $5 million, that's net, not gross. Louisville and Georgia Tech probably don't get that much, but Clemson and Florida St absolutely do.

Yes we are. Pitt has consistently played 2 P5s but take last year for an example. We played Iowa. Iowa now has a 9 game B10 schedule plus ISU. They are not able to be scheduled now. That's an example of the difficulty. Scheduling 2 P5s will be very difficult. So, we are giving up games with marquee teams FSU and Clemson and good programs Lou and NCSU for possibly Purdue, IU, Kansas, etc.

When we've scheduled 2 P5s in the past, no league played 9 games. Now they all do except the SEC and they only play 1 P5.

The only solution here is 9+1+compensating teams for a lost home game. The Coastal teams get FSU and Clemson more often and FSU and Clemson get made whole for doing it.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

The only solution here is 9+1+compensating teams for a lost home game. The Coastal teams get FSU and Clemson more often and FSU and Clemson get made whole for doing it

This is the best solution I think for Pitt. But they(ACC) have to make a real effort not to hurt the big ACC fb programs. Whether its financial or whatever. Its just how the league is.

 

[ThePanthers]

The only solution here is 9+1+compensating teams for a lost home game. The Coastal teams get FSU and Clemson more often and FSU and Clemson get made whole for doing it

This is the best solution I think for Pitt. But they(ACC) have to make a real effort not to hurt the big ACC fb programs. Whether its financial or whatever. Its just how the league is.

The ACC offices are not making this decision. The individual school ADs are.

 

[ThePanthers]

Again, I dont' care either way, and the more I think about it, the 8+2 model is probably the best.

Just playing devils advocate on some of these things because I can understand both sides of the equation. It's one of the difficulties with a larger league and a scheduling agreement with ND.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

a perr ‏@aperr2 42m42 minutes ago
@DavidTeelatDP If its 9, the southern fb should be compensated for losing a home game now and then. They can't lose more ground with sec.

David Teel ‏@DavidTeelatDP 40m40 minutes ago
ACCN windfall will more than compensate.

 

[ThePanthers]

a perr ‏@aperr2 42m42 minutes ago
@DavidTeelatDP If its 9, the southern fb should be compensated for losing a home game now and then. They can't lose more ground with sec.

David Teel ‏@DavidTeelatDP 40m40 minutes ago
ACCN windfall will more than compensate.

Whiney people.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

So basically you are saying it is difficult to schedule power 5 teams ooc since all but the sec is going to play 9 games. You've just made an argument for what you are arguing against.

Nope, not at all. What I'm saying is Carolina had a strategy in place of replacing bailed P5 games with FCS games because at the time, the playoff didn't exist, and we were trying to just put Ws on our schedule to pad stats. The playoff, its committee, and said committee's emphasis on strength of schedule and avoiding two FCS teams, wasn't even a thought three years ago. That was my point. My point was also that Ohio State bailed because of the B1G moving to a 9-game slate......that's my point. A 9-game conf. schedule discourages schools from scheduling home-and-home marquee OOC games. It will only be one-off neutral site games from now on and that's a LOSING proposition for the fans (don't get the game at home and it costs 3x as much to attend those neutral site games).

The playoff committee made huge stinks about fcs opponents. I don't know what you were following. It was a huge knock against FSU two years ago. Askarma Oregon abouthe good losses.

It was a huge knock on us IN CONJUNCTION WITH how shitty our ACC schedule was. If we had had Clemson and FSU on our schedule and if anyone in the Coastal besides us had managed to get themselves ranked, it would've been much less of an issue to have two FCS teams on there. Guaranteed if an Alabama, LSU, or Pac-12 team had two FCS squads on their schedule, it wouldn't get nearly as much flack for it because of the presence of several ranked conference foes also on the docket. This comes back to the ACC not having cachet. ACC schools need to bolster their strength of schedule by scheduling solid OOC games, which won't happen if we go to a 9-game slate; instead, we'll all just add one more ACC underwhelming foe like UVA or Wake Forest, which does nothing for the S-O-S of an ACC squad with NY6 aspirations.

There is no evidence what so ever about the ACC Champion having trouble getting in. The is all kook talk show and Internet garbage. If acc champ is considered one of the top 4 teams even with one loss they will get in.

Wrong. FSU wouldn't have made it in in 2014 if they had lost a game. The committee said that every week with the way it ranked FSU. And they wouldn't have made it because of the league's perceived weakness, not because of two FCS schools.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

 

[QuitCallingMeWanny]

Question for anyone in the know....How much input would Notre Dame have despite not being in for football? The reason I ask is I don't think ND would want 9 games, if by a long shot they would decide to join, due to the simple fact that they don't want to give up Navy and also Stanford and USC at home in the fall and then playing them away out on the west coast every other year...

 

[ThePanthers]

Nope, not at all. What I'm saying is Carolina had a strategy in place of replacing bailed P5 games with FCS games because at the time, the playoff didn't exist, and we were trying to just put Ws on our schedule to pad stats. The playoff, its committee, and said committee's emphasis on strength of schedule and avoiding two FCS teams, wasn't even a thought three years ago. That was my point. My point was also that Ohio State bailed because of the B1G moving to a 9-game slate......that's my point. A 9-game conf. schedule discourages schools from scheduling home-and-home marquee OOC games. It will only be one-off neutral site games from now on and that's a LOSING proposition for the fans (don't get the game at home and it costs 3x as much to attend those neutral site games).


It was a huge knock on us IN CONJUNCTION WITH how shitty our ACC schedule was. If we had had Clemson and FSU on our schedule and if anyone in the Coastal besides us had managed to get themselves ranked, it would've been much less of an issue to have two FCS teams on there. Guaranteed if an Alabama, LSU, or Pac-12 team had two FCS squads on their schedule, it wouldn't get nearly as much flack for it because of the presence of several ranked conference foes also on the docket. This comes back to the ACC not having cachet. ACC schools need to bolster their strength of schedule by scheduling solid OOC games, which won't happen if we go to a 9-game slate; instead, we'll all just add one more ACC underwhelming foe like UVA or Wake Forest, which does nothing for the S-O-S of an ACC squad with NY6 aspirations.


Wrong. FSU wouldn't have made it in in 2014 if they had lost a game. The committee said that every week with the way it ranked FSU. And they wouldn't have made it because of the league's perceived weakness, not because of two FCS schools.

You don't make much sense. You are saying it gets more difficult to schedule marquee OOC games with the Pac 12 , BIG and Big XII going to 9 games (a reality that is not changing), so you want to schedule 2 P5 games instead of 1.

You complain that playing the Coastal did not have enough cache, yet want to remain at 8 games where you play the marquee ACC Atlantic opponents on a less frequent basis.

You are correct, FSU probably wouldn't have made the playoff with 1 loss in 2014, but it has nothing to do with the ACC. FSU did not look like one of the 4 best teams in the nation. They most likely would have made it in 2013 if there was a playoff, and there was talk of Clemson making it last year even if they lost the ACC championship game.

As for the ACC and no cache, I believe that perception is changing. Everything is cyclical. There are 4 top 25 preseason teams, 2 in the top 5, and Miami at #26, with Pitt and Duke receiving votes. Pretty much on par with the other P5 conferences this year.

 

[ThePanthers]

As for the other 10 schools not giving up anything, they may not, but they are certaintly taking on significantly more risk of P5 teams cancelling games on them (which happens all the time). That risk will now be doubled. I turn, they will probably miss the 2 P5 requirement, or have to settle for teams that do not draw. The ones with the built in rivalries have significantly less risk.

It goes both ways.

 

[Jpripper88]

All the other conferences are going to be at 9 conference games and so will the ACC. They aren't going to set up an idiotic situation where they play "OOC" ACC games and be an absolute joke.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

You don't make much sense. You are saying it gets more difficult to schedule marquee OOC games with the Pac 12 , BIG and Big XII going to 9 games (a reality that is not changing), so you want to schedule 2 P5 games instead of 1.

Big 12 is already at 9 games and has been. B1G going to nine does make it harder, but it is far from impossible. If given a mandate to do so, you'll be surprised how quickly ACC ADs will make it happen. I fail to see where I "don't make much sense."

You complain that playing the Coastal did not have enough cache, yet want to remain at 8 games where you play the marquee ACC Atlantic opponents on a less frequent basis.

9-game slate would make little difference on that. We'd still have to go three seasons in between FSU and Clemson. I want more marquee OOC games, rather than more conference games. That's what the whole league should want too because like I said, the league has a very poor national perception. Which leads me to.......

You are correct, FSU probably wouldn't have made the playoff with 1 loss in 2014, but it has nothing to do with the ACC. FSU did not look like one of the 4 best teams in the nation.

While FSU's inability to blow out teams was referenced, the ACC's lack of perceived difficulty was discussed frequently. If a Pac-12 or SEC team had done the exact same thing FSU had done (jump out to early deficits then claw back and end up winning), there would've been basically no talk about them missing out on the playoff. The ACC has 2.5 teams that get noted as being elite.....FSU and Clemson. I say 2.5 because some view Louisville as respectable enough to also lump them in to that category. Besides those 2.5, that's it. UNC and Pitt may be "getting better," but as of now, they do not add much of anything to the clout of the ACC. Three Coastal teams need to be good for it to register any type of impact right now. It would help the conference if Miami could ever get itself ranked.