ACC Going to 9 Games for Football?

[kirbivore]

Noine games has a good ring to it

 

[Scooch]

At the core of this debate is that college football programs are going to need to make some hard choices in terms of scheduling in the next few years. As the gravy train of cable subscriber fees diminishes I suspect that there is going to be a demand for higher-quality match-ups that produce higher TV ratings and digital streaming audiences and fuel advertising sales and attract subscribers. I also suspect that there is going to be a tension between preserving lucrative home games against cupcakes and scheduling more attractive teams for the benefit of media partners.

From my perspective, the product would be much better if they did away with FCS games and low-tier FBS opponents and used a more NFL-style schedule in playing like programs. But that would probably mean the days of 0 and 1 loss seasons coming to an end. Speaking for myself I'd welcome that and be fine seeing 2 and 3 loss teams in the playoffs if it meant more quality games during the regular season.

But we're talking about a sport that is powered by greed and self-interest, so giving-to-get is not something we usually witness.

 

[omniorange]

I, for one, am not convinced a 9th conference game necessarily will result in a 6 game home schedule except the once in every six years a team plays the Irish @ND.

Let's look at Ohio State. They will be playing Oklahoma and TCU out of conference over the next four years but for Clemson and FSU that P5 opponent is set with South Carolina or Florida. Also it appears the Buckeyes have gained Nebraska as their cross-divisional rival, something similar that Clemson and FSU already have with GT and Miami respectively. They will still play 7 home games in three of the next four years, with a body bag G5 game still to be determined in 2018 which shows that for some at least going to a 9 game conference schedule and still playing 7 home games is possible. But the fact the Tigers and Noles must play South Carolina and Florida respectively, adding a 9th conference games does prevent any hope of scheduling the likes of Oklahoma or Auburn (no matter how frequently or infrequently that happens now) while keeping a 7 game home schedule.

I suspect the real issue remains what it has always been, divisional set-up and the lack of power football overall in the conference. Within their division the Buckeyes are playing Michigan, Michigan State, and PSU. Other than each other, what for Clemson and FSU fans are the equivalent games within the division? How excited do the majority of us get when we play Louisville, NC State, and Wake? Heck, I am not sure even a majority of us get excited to play BC and we have a lot of history with them. This is the problem as I see it. And again, cycling through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt faster than they do now, does not appear to be the answer to their fans, especially since they will see that game replacing a potential big time marquee game like Oklahoma, Auburn, etc.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

I, for one, am not convinced a 9th conference game necessarily will result in a 6 game home schedule except the once in every six years a team plays the Irish @ND.

Let's look at Ohio State. They will be playing Oklahoma and TCU out of conference over the next four years but for Clemson and FSU that P5 opponent is set with South Carolina or Florida. Also it appears the Buckeyes have gained Nebraska as their cross-divisional rival, something similar that Clemson and FSU already have with GT and Miami respectively. They will still play 7 home games in three of the next four years, with a body bag G5 game still to be determined in 2018 which shows that for some at least going to a 9 game conference schedule and still playing 7 home games is possible. But the fact the Tigers and Noles must play South Carolina and Florida respectively, adding a 9th conference games does prevent any hope of scheduling the likes of Oklahoma or Auburn (no matter how frequently or infrequently that happens now) while keeping a 7 game home schedule.

I suspect the real issue remains what it has always been, divisional set-up and the lack of power football overall in the conference. Within their division the Buckeyes are playing Michigan, Michigan State, and PSU. Other than each other, what for Clemson and FSU fans are the equivalent games within the division? How excited do the majority of us get when we play Louisville, NC State, and Wake? Heck, I am not sure even a majority of us get excited to play BC and we have a lot of history with them. This is the problem as I see it. And again, cycling through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt faster than they do now, does not appear to be the answer to their fans, especially since they will see that game replacing a potential big time marquee game like Oklahoma, Auburn, etc.

Cheers,
Neil

It restricts neutral site and home/home games for FSU and Clemson. They would need ESPN to give them a lot of money to even consider it. If Florida-Florida State moved to a neutral site game annually in Jacksonville maybe that could be a solution.
Clemson-South Carolina could play their game annually in Charlotte if they wanted to be a neutral site as well. That is the one possible compromise.

 

[KaiserUEO]

At the core of this debate is that college football programs are going to need to make some hard choices in terms of scheduling in the next few years. As the gravy train of cable subscriber fees diminishes I suspect that there is going to be a demand for higher-quality match-ups that produce higher TV ratings and digital streaming audiences and fuel advertising sales and attract subscribers. I also suspect that there is going to be a tension between preserving lucrative home games against cupcakes and scheduling more attractive teams for the benefit of media partners.

From my perspective, the product would be much better if they did away with FCS games and low-tier FBS opponents and used a more NFL-style schedule in playing like programs. But that would probably mean the days of 0 and 1 loss seasons coming to an end. Speaking for myself I'd welcome that and be fine seeing 2 and 3 loss teams in the playoffs if it meant more quality games during the regular season.

But we're talking about a sport that is powered by greed and self-interest, so giving-to-get is not something we usually witness.

Will 9 & 13 accomplish the $$$ grab??

Ideally, that's what I want...and think is the final destination.

 

[omniorange]

It restricts neutral site and home/home games for FSU and Clemson. They would need ESPN to give them a lot of money to even consider it. If Florida-Florida State moved to a neutral site game annually in Jacksonville maybe that could be a solution.
Clemson-South Carolina could play their game annually in Charlotte if they wanted to be a neutral site as well. That is the one possible compromise.

Again, the above assumes the loss of 7th home game revenue is the pre-eminent issue. I don't think that it is at least amongst the fans. As I see it and tried to explain in my post, that is being used as "cover" for what the real problem is - they don't want to cycle through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt quicker when they already have to play SU, BC, Wake, and perhaps NC State and Louisville as well. The real issue is the lack of attractive football programs in the conference outside of each other and the current divisional set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

Will 9 & 13 accomplish the $$$ grab??

Ideally, that's what I want...and think is the final destination.

I don't think so. It's not just quantity, but quality. If the attendance declines in college football have illustrated anything its that fans are much more discerning than they once were. Even big, rabid fanbases aren't filling stadiums to see Mega U play Scrub State.

There needs to be quality to drive sales and subscriptions.

Two cases in point...

1- When I was a kid and watched WWF the TV matches were stars wrestling chumps. The star vs star matches were saved for the live shows, because that's where the money was. Today, if you watch Monday Night Raw on USA it's all star vs. star matches, because TV is where the money is.

2- The first game broadcast on the SEC Network was Texas A&M vs. South Carolina. It was not Texas A&M vs. Sam Houston State.

*edit* I should have mentioned that I think a 13 game regular season is inevitable. The 13th game just can't be filled with a clunker.

 

[sutomcat]

At the core of this debate is that college football programs are going to need to make some hard choices in terms of scheduling in the next few years. As the gravy train of cable subscriber fees diminishes I suspect that there is going to be a demand for higher-quality match-ups that produce higher TV ratings and digital streaming audiences and fuel advertising sales and attract subscribers. I also suspect that there is going to be a tension between preserving lucrative home games against cupcakes and scheduling more attractive teams for the benefit of media partners.

From my perspective, the product would be much better if they did away with FCS games and low-tier FBS opponents and used a more NFL-style schedule in playing like programs. But that would probably mean the days of 0 and 1 loss seasons coming to an end. Speaking for myself I'd welcome that and be fine seeing 2 and 3 loss teams in the playoffs if it meant more quality games during the regular season.

But we're talking about a sport that is powered by greed and self-interest, so giving-to-get is not something we usually witness.

Word.

I think the only way a 9 game conference schedule happens is if

a) as others have said, the NCAA approves a 13 game regular season schedule

or

b) a 9 game conference schedule is a prerequisite for an ACC network

The question is, how many annual revenue would an ACC network need to generate per school to get FSU and Clemson to come on board. $5 million per year?

Not sure.

 

[Alsacs]

Again, you keep assuming the loss of 7th home game revenue is the issue. I don't think that it is. As I see it and tried to explain in my post, that is being used as "cover" for what the real problem is - they don't want to cycle through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt quicker when they already have to play SU, BC, Wake, and perhaps NC State and Louisville as well. The real issue is the lack of attractive football programs in the conference outside of each other and the current divisional set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

The Clemson fan in this thread already said it was an issue and that Clemson needs 7 home games every year.

Why wouldn't any team not want to cycle the conference faster? It would have unanimous support if it could be done with the 3+5+5.

You don't think games with Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Pitt are appealing? I think they would love to play more Coastal teams.

 

[Hoo's That]

Neither side wants the D-1A teams to stop scheduling the D-1AA teams. For the D-1A team, it's a guaranteed home game and a 80-90% guaranteed win. For D-1AA team, it's a huge paycheck that will go a long way toward funding the rest of the athletic department for the year. While I beyond-hate it, I'm part of a very small minority on our board; the other UVa fans love the idea of playing the VA D-1AA schools to the point that they think that our administration would vote against a proposed ban of that practice by ACC schools.

I think the end-game is 13 regular season games. I've felt that way for some time.

I really don't understand the true purpose 9 conference games. The system ALSACS devised with the VA and NC schools changing divisions every 2 years would allow the ACC members to play every other team home-and-home (not just once) every 6 years. There is no section of the rule on championship games specifying how long teams have to be in a particular division. So that eliminates "getting through the rotation faster" as an argument.

I don't know enough about to the money situation to understand how that 9th conference game means more money for the ACC from ESPN. BTW, FSU would want Ga Tech because Atlanta actually is closer to Tally than Miami is. Louisville would like to play Miami because they have a bunch of FL recruits, although many of their fans have advocated trading their "rivalry" game with us for one with VPI.

 

[Alsacs]

13 game schedule isn't happening. If conferences like the Pac-12, Big XII, Big Ten can play 9 conference games then the ACC can as well. They just need to alleviate Clemson/Florida State's financial demands or leave it as is and deal without having a network.

 

[Alsacs]

Just a reminder of my VA/NC idea.
Division 1
Duke
North Carolina
Virginia

Division 2
NC State
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

Then rotate the other 8 teams every 2 years. Protect whatever other games that are necessary as well. The NC/VA schools would have 1 crossover protected and rotate playing the other cross-team every 2 years.

 

[Frozen]

Just a reminder of my VA/NC idea.

That reminds me of my Virginia/Governor's Island/North America idea. I call it my VA/GI/NA idea.

 

[Alsacs]

That reminds me of my Virginia/Governor's Island/North America idea. I call it my VA/GI/NA idea.

It must be popular with the ladies or a must have for them.

 

[omniorange]

At the core of this debate is that college football programs are going to need to make some hard choices in terms of scheduling in the next few years. As the gravy train of cable subscriber fees diminishes I suspect that there is going to be a demand for higher-quality match-ups that produce higher TV ratings and digital streaming audiences and fuel advertising sales and attract subscribers. I also suspect that there is going to be a tension between preserving lucrative home games against cupcakes and scheduling more attractive teams for the benefit of media partners.

From my perspective, the product would be much better if they did away with FCS games and low-tier FBS opponents and used a more NFL-style schedule in playing like programs. But that would probably mean the days of 0 and 1 loss seasons coming to an end. Speaking for myself I'd welcome that and be fine seeing 2 and 3 loss teams in the playoffs if it meant more quality games during the regular season.

But we're talking about a sport that is powered by greed and self-interest, so giving-to-get is not something we usually witness.

Love this post overall, but I think we may be a ways away from your idea regarding having no low-tier FBS opponents, but are getting closer to no FCS games.

As for the highlighted part in the 1st paragraph, I believe my thinking is that to achieve it in the ACC simply adding a 9th conference game will not necessarily distinguish it from either the B12 or PAC, who right now have 9 game conference schedules. Unless the B12 expands, they currently play everyone (so they have maxed out their conference potential and can only improve OOC) while the PAC having only 12 teams not only cycle through everyone more quickly, they have a divisional set-up that is more geographically sensible than does the ACC. Lastly, the division between the top of the PAC and the bottom of the PAC doesn't seem to me to be as big a divide as in the ACC. If anything, the PAC seems to have this huge middle squished together of interchangeable teams.

The ACC having 14 teams, a more zipper approach to divisions, and a huge perceived gap between the upper echelon and lower echelon has a harder task in trying to meet the need for higher quality match-ups for the national games broadcast on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and high-interest games for those accessing the digital streaming access of an ACCN. Which is why I believe the ACC, if it does indeed add a 9th conference game, might go in a different direction that others seem to think.

UNC and Wake obviously believe there is interest in their match-up in the state of North Carolina or why else schedule it as an OOC game? Some FSU fans seem to believe scheduling GT on an annual basis is a game the majority of their fans are interested in - sometimes it will be a nationally broadcast game while other times it will be an ACCN game. Can't seem to determine which Coastal team Tigers fans' would want to play more, but I think ESPN would want it to be either VT or Miami, but hope the conference comes to this conclusion on their own.

None of the above is to say adding a 9th conference game won't simply wind up keeping the 1 cross-divisional rival and cycling through the other 6 teams quicker. But it seems to me the $$$ might be presumed to be higher if they go a different direction. I have been known to be wrong before.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Just a reminder of my VA/NC idea.
Division 1
Duke
North Carolina
Virginia

Division 2
NC State
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

Then rotate the other 8 teams every 2 years. Protect whatever other games that are necessary as well. The NC/VA schools would have 1 crossover protected and rotate playing the other cross-team every 2 years.

Putting aside the VA/GI/NA jokes...

Any set-up that begins with the above, no matter how good it might be (which I haven't truly analyzed so I can't say either way at this point) is likely to be the object of ridicule from the get go simply because the only football program above that has ever generated any ratings or football passion is VT. Again, the end result might be great but if you want to sell the merits of it, you might want to consider re-thinking the presentation so that somehow FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc. are at the forefront of it rather than Tobacco Road plus VT. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Chris02M]

That isn't the problem the problem is that with a 9 game schedule years FSU/Clemson play at Notre Dame they would only have 6 home games.

With 8 conference games those 2 schools can play 2 tough OOC games and still get 7 home games with 9 conference games they can't guarantee 7 home games which they need for the AD budget.

ESPN and ACCN would have to give the $$$ to make it worth it for them when they would have to play at Notre Dame.

since the nd games have been announced thru 2024 or 25 it shouldnt be that hard

 

[irishredhomebrew]

Again, the above assumes the loss of 7th home game revenue is the pre-eminent issue. I don't think that it is at least amongst the fans. As I see it and tried to explain in my post, that is being used as "cover" for what the real problem is - they don't want to cycle through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt quicker when they already have to play SU, BC, Wake, and perhaps NC State and Louisville as well. The real issue is the lack of attractive football programs in the conference outside of each other and the current divisional set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

I can only speak for myself, but I completely disagree. 5 home and 5 away every year predetermined. In a 12 game schedule, you have 2 games left to schedule. If you do home and aways with only P5 programs, then it balances to 6 home games a year (again, under the notion that a respected program will demand a home and away series). If you schedule one p5 home and away (on top of the annual SC rivalry), and have the other as a "buy" home game, then you arrive at a 2 year rotation of 7 home one year, 6 home the following year.
The only way for 7 per year is by paying teams to come to Death Valley for the needed 2 games every year.

Even by buying the home games, the 7th game will be lost every nth year that we go to South Bend for Notre Dame.

Finally, Clemson has already cancelled games in the past when the 9 conference game plan passed before Notre Dame joined. We are not in hypotheticals, there is precedent to verify the point:



CLEMSON, S.C. (AP) -- Clemson has cancelled football future, home-and-home football series with Mississippi and Oklahoma State.

School spokesman Tim Bourret said Thursday the Tigers would not play the Rebels in 2015 and 2016, or against the Cowboys in 2019 and 2020.

Clemson athletic director Terry Don Phillips cited the Atlantic Coast Conference's move to a nine-game schedule and the need for the Tigers to play seven home games as reasons for cutting the series.

Phillips said the school was able to hang on to the renewal of its series with Georgia. The Tigers and Bulldogs are scheduled to open the season at Clemson in 2013 and in Athens, Ga., in 2014.

Source: Clemson football cancels series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma St


Clemson will not schedule H&H series under the 9 game plan. Even against FCS teams, ticket sales will still exceed 75,000. It is all about the gate money.

 

[omniorange]

I can only speak for myself, but I completely disagree. 5 home and 5 away every year predetermined. In a 12 game schedule, you have 2 games left to schedule. If you do home and aways with only P5 programs, then it balances to 6 home games a year (again, under the notion that a respected program will demand a home and away series). If you schedule one p5 home and away (on top of the annual SC rivalry), and have the other as a "buy" home game, then you arrive at a 2 year rotation of 7 home one year, 6 home the following year.
The only way for 7 per year is by paying teams to come to Death Valley for the needed 2 games every year.

Even by buying the home games, the 7th game will be lost every nth year that we go to South Bend for Notre Dame.

Yes, the bolded statement above is true, but it's exactly what Clemson is doing now with an 8 game conference schedule. They are buying two body bag home games each and every year.

So it is possible (if you have the money and will to buy them) and for any others who still doubt it, all one has to do is go to this link: OhioStateBuckeyes.com :: The Ohio State University Official Athletic Site The Ohio State University Official Athletic Site :: Football and see that Ohio State with the B1G going to a 9 game schedule this year has 4 years of schedules already out there showing 7 home games and that's with the Big Ten not allowing any FCS opponents, which the ACC still allows. So 7 home games are doable since the Tigers can still schedule the likes of Appalachian State, Georgia State, Troy, etc., as examples of recent body bag FBS teams scheduled and Wofford, South Carolina State, Furman, etc., as examples of recent body bag FCS teams scheduled. When was the last time Clemson didn't schedule two body bag games? Early 2000s?

The scheduling practice of paying for 2 body bag games a year is more than a decade old and is not the true issue. The only true impact as you state and I also have stated in an earlier post is that with the ND commitment there will be one year in six where Clemson must play the Irish game at ND, resulting in 6 home games.

The true change is that like with Ohio State (who is paying for the two body bag games to ensure 7 home games every year) the Tigers are now pretty much restricted to playing one OOC game under the 9 game conference schedule instead of possibly playing two (like tOSU playing OU for two years and the TCU for two years), and that Clemson's one marquee OOC game is restricted to being only the annual game against South Carolina except for two years in six when ND will be scheduled once at home and once away.

What is truly being lost by having to play a 9th conference game is the ability to schedule the likes of Auburn or Georgia (to give two recent OOC foes) as that additional marquee OOC game (additional to South Carolina) in four years out of every six year cycle to not lose the 7th home game. If the AD wanted to, he could still schedule the likes of an Auburn or a Georgia even with a 9 game conference schedule. But to accomplish that he would have to sacrifice a 7th home game.

So the addition of a 9th conference game isn't forcing Clemson to pay for two body bag games. The real issue is that Clemson fans don't want to give up playing the likes of an Auburn or a Georgia for the purpose of cycling through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt quicker. Perhaps the AD will feel the same as the fans or perhaps not depending upon how much an ACCN brings in and or TV contracts are increased.

Lastly, it's not as though I don't sympathize with Tigers and Noles fans on this topic. I do. But I also believe in telling it like it is. And if Clemson was in the SEC East division and the conference decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule, I bet most Tigers fans would relish the thought of cycling through Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Miss. State quicker and not give a second thought about losing that additional OOC marquee game they had with an 8 game schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Moontan]

Short of a 13th game, another option that Clemson, FAU, GA Tech and Louisville have of adding another P5 series would be to reduce the frequency of their rivalry game. They could change it up so that those are played on a 2-years-on and 2-years-off basis.

I don't see that happening.

The PAC-12's Stanford & USC are in a similar bind, as they have 9 conference games and a rivalry game in ND. While they don't have the ACC ND wildcard thrown in, these two regularly only have 6 home games. USC adds an extra P5 game this year by playing Alabama in Jerry World. In '17 and '18 they have a series with the Longhorns.

A 13th game could be added by dropping the open week that each school has in the current scheduling process. It would create quite the uproar over the welfare of student-athletes being sacrificed for some more money. Starting the season a week earlier would be the only alternative, which could see some schools playing before their Fall semester is in session.

Another alternative is for the ACC to to cycle through 9-game and 8-game schedules on a 2-year basis. It gives ESPN extra content 50% of the time and the SEC-4 the possibility of having 7 home games 50% of the time. This is unlikely to happen... just thinking out loud.

The ACC should go to one of the 3-5-5 models until this is worked out.

 

[irishredhomebrew]

Yes, the bolded statement above is true, but it's exactly what Clemson is doing now with an 8 game conference schedule. They are buying two body bag home games each and every year.

So it is possible (if you have the money and will to buy them) and for any others who still doubt it, all one has to do is go to this link: OhioStateBuckeyes.com :: The Ohio State University Official Athletic Site The Ohio State University Official Athletic Site :: Football and see that Ohio State with the B1G going to a 9 game schedule this year has 4 years of schedules already out there showing 7 home games and that's with the Big Ten not allowing any FCS opponents, which the ACC still allows. So 7 home games are doable since the Tigers can still schedule the likes of Appalachian State, Georgia State, Troy, etc., as examples of recent body bag FBS teams scheduled and Wofford, South Carolina State, Furman, etc., as examples of recent body bag FCS teams scheduled. When was the last time Clemson didn't schedule two body bag games? Early 2000s?

The scheduling practice of paying for 2 body bag games a year is more than a decade old and is not the true issue. The only true impact as you state and I also have stated in an earlier post is that with the ND commitment there will be one year in six where Clemson must play the Irish game at ND, resulting in 6 home games.

The true change is that like with Ohio State (who is paying for the two body bag games to ensure 7 home games every year) the Tigers are now pretty much restricted to playing one OOC game under the 9 game conference schedule instead of possibly playing two (like tOSU playing OU for two years and the TCU for two years), and that Clemson's one marquee OOC game is restricted to being only the annual game against South Carolina except for two years in six when ND will be scheduled once at home and once away.

What is truly being lost by having to play a 9th conference game is the ability to schedule the likes of Auburn or Georgia (to give two recent OOC foes) as that additional marquee OOC game (additional to South Carolina) in four years out of every six year cycle to not lose the 7th home game. If the AD wanted to, he could still schedule the likes of an Auburn or a Georgia even with a 9 game conference schedule. But to accomplish that he would have to sacrifice a 7th home game.

So the addition of a 9th conference game isn't forcing Clemson to pay for two body bag games. The real issue is that Clemson fans don't want to give up playing the likes of an Auburn or a Georgia for the purpose of cycling through the likes of UVa, UNC, Duke, and Pitt quicker. Perhaps the AD will feel the same as the fans or perhaps not depending upon how much an ACCN brings in and or TV contracts are increased.

Lastly, it's not as though I don't sympathize with Tigers and Noles fans on this topic. I do. But I also believe in telling it like it is. And if Clemson was in the SEC East division and the conference decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule, I bet most Tigers fans would relish the thought of cycling through Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Miss. State quicker and not give a second thought about losing that additional OOC marquee game they had with an 8 game schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

Last post from me on this, so here goes.
12 games -5 road games every year set in stone leaves 7 games to have home games. 5 of the 7 games would be set in the schedule (between the conference games and the SCAR game rotating home and away), leaving 2 for creative scheduling. There is no way to get those LAST 2 to be home games every year if they are with other power 5 teams because those power 5 teams will rightfully demand a return trip for the series. That leaves the body bag games as the only option to ensure a 7 game schedule.

I provided a link that said the exact same from our athletic director when this occurred last time. I do not think you can get any more emphatic than that. It has nothing to do with avoiding certain teams in the conference. It has everything to do with finances.

 

[Ottoble]

Not only that but the fans would never settle for 6 home games.

Would they care if it was just the 1AA game that went away and 5 out of 6 years was 7 games and the 6 game year was a killer home slate? With 2 or 3 for 1 g5 deals that clemson should be capable of, creative scheduling could make it work. Probably the year with 6 at home could be scheduled so its 4 home conf + SC at home + ND or Big P5 at home.

Id buy that ticket at the same price in a second for a season of 6 games w/ SC, ND at home vs 2016's 7 games with SC, a G5 and a 1AA at home. 6 big games vs 5, Thoughts?

 

[TheCusian]

Last post from me on this, so here goes. 12 games -5 road games every year set in stone leaves 7 games to have home games. 5 of the 7 games would be set in the schedule (between the conference games and the SCAR game rotating home and away), leaving 2 for creative scheduling. There is no way to get those LAST 2 to be home games every year if they are with other power 5 teams because those power 5 teams will rightfully demand a return trip for the series. That leaves the body bag games as the only option to ensure a 7 game schedule. I provided a link that said the exact same from our athletic director when this occurred last time. I do not think you can get any more emphatic than that. It has nothing to do with avoiding certain teams in the conference. It has everything to do with finances.

And as I said prior - finances will determine it:

Added ESPN $ + home/home with p5 (home game revenue 50% time) > revenue from 7th home game

That's why Clemson/Louisville/FSU will end up agreeing to it in the end. It's not a loss of a home game a year, it's every other year (and go body bag if you don't like those terms).

Could get creative with a neutral site game with split gate, 3rd party $, etc.

 

[omniorange]

Last post from me on this, so here goes.
12 games -5 road games every year set in stone leaves 7 games to have home games. 5 of the 7 games would be set in the schedule (between the conference games and the SCAR game rotating home and away), leaving 2 for creative scheduling. There is no way to get those LAST 2 to be home games every year if they are with other power 5 teams because those power 5 teams will rightfully demand a return trip for the series. That leaves the body bag games as the only option to ensure a 7 game schedule.

I provided a link that said the exact same from our athletic director when this occurred last time. I do not think you can get any more emphatic than that. It has nothing to do with avoiding certain teams in the conference. It has everything to do with finances.

I don't believe finances are the issue. Just charge the same price for 6 home games as is being charged for 7 home games now. Only loss then would be consessions, something the additional $$$ from an ACCN will more than compensate for. But most importantly it can't be the issue since I have already demonstrated that Clemson can keep 7 home games by giving up the extra P5 OOC for the P5 conference game. It's the perceived quality of that P5 game that is the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Moontan]

I don't believe finances are the issue. Just charge the same price for 6 home games as is being charged for 7 home games now. Only loss then would be consessions, something the additional $$$ from an ACCN will more than compensate for.

Lots of revenue from tailgating space as well, I'd imagine. You should see the number of RVs, tents, etc. that are parked around and near the stadium. A bit different than the Fine Lot.