ACC Meetings ...

[HRE Otto IV]

FSU vs SU is not happening.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If you had a home field that seats even just 60K and you filled it almost every week, then that answer would make sense. But you do not, and your local TV market is very small, and there is the glaring history of NYC people seeing upstate NY as akin to a foreign country, a backward foreign country.

If Syracuse did become NY's CFB team, then Syracuse would gain a good deal of clout within the sport. That cannot come to pass unless Syracuse is playing at least 1 game biannually in NYC - a game that would matter to more than a handful of NYC people. As you have so many alums living within a 2 hour drive of NYC, and Miami also has a large number of alums living in the area, playing each other in NYC could be very good for both.

Your takes on these things are brilliant

 

[CousCuse]

If you had a home field that seats even just 60K and you filled it almost every week, then that answer would make sense. But you do not, and your local TV market is very small, and there is the glaring history of NYC people seeing upstate NY as akin to a foreign country, a backward foreign country.

If Syracuse did become NY's CFB team, then Syracuse would gain a good deal of clout within the sport. That cannot come to pass unless Syracuse is playing at least 1 game biannually in NYC - a game that would matter to more than a handful of NYC people. As you have so many alums living within a 2 hour drive of NYC, and Miami also has a large number of alums living in the area, playing each other in NYC could be very good for both.

Syracuse and the ACC could create a series of ACC football in NYC where Syracuse would be the host team but would lose a home game every third year and the other team playing would lose a home game the other 2 years. Maybe that would be acceptable.

 

[orange79]

If you had a home field that seats even just 60K and you filled it almost every week, then that answer would make sense. But you do not, and your local TV market is very small, and there is the glaring history of NYC people seeing upstate NY as akin to a foreign country, a backward foreign country.

If Syracuse did become NY's CFB team, then Syracuse would gain a good deal of clout within the sport. That cannot come to pass unless Syracuse is playing at least 1 game biannually in NYC - a game that would matter to more than a handful of NYC people. As you have so many alums living within a 2 hour drive of NYC, and Miami also has a large number of alums living in the area, playing each other in NYC could be very good for both.

I'll say it once again.

We have done that. It was done purely for economic survival. We are not in that situation anymore. Further attempting to make this case is just a waste of time and pixels on your part.

It is not happening again.

 

[WoadBlue]

I spoke to someone who would know at BC. BC, UNC, Duke, Stanford, ND, Northwesfern, Syracuse are chatting more than you think. At the president level.

It may not be a traditional Downsize but when the teams that splinter their football teams into money makers(think SEC), we will be with the above schools in some sort of consortium that emphasize sports and academics within college framework.

We will be fine but we will keep sports with college ecosystem

I don’t think the ND AD spoke without something behind it on timing and future.

Something is going to happen with Major College Football and the NCAA.

There are powerful elements in both the SEC and BT, and perhaps at SC and maybe Oregon (and I think among ND boosters), that want a small separation group to go full semi-pro. They will need at least 30 schools and probably would not want more than 48 (SEC and BT, in effect, becoming 24 teams each, and serving as the AFC and NFC of semi-pro CFB).

The other main option is that the P5 will lead to the creation of another NCAA division which will have major autonomy (i.e. the NCAA would not have the right to order us to play division schedules in order to have a CCG, we would set rules regarding NIL, number of assistants, number of recruiting visits, etc.). That is still the college student athlete system.

The SEC and BT people who crave semi-pro do not squarely face the fact that in such a system, they will replace the MAC and Sunbelt and CUSA, etc. as bottom feeders with the bottom halves of their conferences. No longer will the SEC be Top Dog conference looking way down at that bunch and definitely down at the ACC and Pac and Big 12. It is not just the highest esteemed academic institutions that would feel that in a semi-pro league. So would Arkansas and Ole Miss and Miss ST and SoCar and UK, etc.There best interests in football, assuming they wish to compete and not just bank more money, is to oppose a move to semi-pro, arguing instead for autonomy for the P5 to have its own division.

I would argue then that the new division should have the right to its own oversight and full control of any other sports it desires. That would mean it would have its own basketball tournament. And yes, that would mean that the biggest basketball programs would become more valuable because they no longer would be carrying at least 15-20 leagues that should be in D2.

Of course, for that to work best, and for the new division to maximize baseball (and it likewise would increase the value of the CWS), it would need to be all 10 D1/FBS leagues, as well as the BE, and probably the A10, MVC, and WCC.

 

[elimunelson]

Something is going to happen with Major College Football and the NCAA.

There are powerful elements in both the SEC and BT, and perhaps at SC and maybe Oregon (and I think among ND boosters), that want a small separation group to go full semi-pro. They will need at least 30 schools and probably would not want more than 48 (SEC and BT, in effect, becoming 24 teams each, and serving as the AFC and NFC of semi-pro CFB).

The other main option is that the P5 will lead to the creation of another NCAA division which will have major autonomy (i.e. the NCAA would not have the right to order us to play division schedules in order to have a CCG, we would set rules regarding NIL, number of assistants, number of recruiting visits, etc.). That is still the college student athlete system.

The SEC and BT people who crave semi-pro do not squarely face the fact that in such a system, they will replace the MAC and Sunbelt and CUSA, etc. as bottom feeders with the bottom halves of their conferences. No longer will the SEC be Top Dog conference looking way down at that bunch and definitely down at the ACC and Pac and Big 12. It is not just the highest esteemed academic institutions that would feel that in a semi-pro league. So would Arkansas and Ole Miss and Miss ST and SoCar and UK, etc.There best interests in football, assuming they wish to compete and not just bank more money, is to oppose a move to semi-pro, arguing instead for autonomy for the P5 to have its own division.

I would argue then that the new division should have the right to its own oversight and full control of any other sports it desires. That would mean it would have its own basketball tournament. And yes, that would mean that the biggest basketball programs would become more valuable because they no longer would be carrying at least 15-20 leagues that should be in D2.

Of course, for that to work best, and for the new division to maximize baseball (and it likewise would increase the value of the CWS), it would need to be all 10 D1/FBS leagues, as well as the BE, and probably the A10, MVC, and WCC.

The Supreme Court decision to allow for NIL is tipping the scales.

Schools don't want to have to write checks for kids to go to school for free at a school they deem valuable on its merits.

I wouldn't be surprised if this all happens quicker than we all anticipate. TV will drive the speed but the horse is leaving the barn with the schools that will tether to academics and those who want semi-pro

 

[gbo]

I am sure they are trying to do just that right now.

What can we do to get more money?

Remember when the Big East was desperate for cash and let ESPN play a major role in setting the men’s basketball schedule? Syracuse played all the teams expected to be top notch in the conference. That was when ND, who played almost no good teams, would beat up the really crappy teams in the conference and contend for conference titles. It was awful. Schedules were incredibly unfair.

I could see ESPN agreeing to modest increases in fees if they were allowed to pick the 3 opponents for each school using the 3-5-5 model.

Probably would end up like this:

Clemson: Miami, Florida State, UNC
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech
Miami: Clemson, Florida State, BC
UNC: Clemson, Duke, NC State
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Duke, Syracuse
BC: Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami
Syracuse: BC, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech
Duke: UNC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, NC State. Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Virginia, UL, Wake Forest
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh: BC, UL Syracuse
NC State: UNC, UL, Wake Forest
Louisville: NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech

It would probably be better for Syracuse but would be the worse setup possible if the goal is to get an ACC team into the college football playoff. If it expands as expected, probably not quite as big of a deal but you want to give schools in your conference the best possible chance to win an NC.

This would not do that. At all.

The ACC has a long and distinguished history though of making awful long term decisions for minor short term money. Let’s see if they have learned anything from all the mistakes.

There's never been a more true statement than this sentence right here. It's why we continue to fall further and further behind the SEC and B10...

Also the schedule for Clemson will be FSU, GT, and NC State.

 

[Hoo's That]

Great news.

It makes so much sense that only a college athletics conference would take 10 years to implement it.

The division system was created quite a while ago by the NCAA for a D-2 conference in PA, which had grown to 12 teams and needed a way to select its champion for the NCAA playoffs. They never expected any D-1 conference to expand to 12 and be eligible for a championship game. The ACC wanted to implement 3-5-5 a while ago but the rule change which would allow it in D-1 was blocked by the SEC and B1G, who were hoping the ACC would implode and they could pick over the rubble. "Lack of foresight" didn't hold up implementation, malice on the part of the SEC and B1G did. What's really stupid about this is that the SEC and B1G superpowers would benefit by getting rid of divisions, notably Ped State.

 

[Hoo's That]

I am sure they are trying to do just that right now.

What can we do to get more money?

Remember when the Big East was desperate for cash and let ESPN play a major role in setting the men’s basketball schedule? Syracuse played all the teams expected to be top notch in the conference. That was when ND, who played almost no good teams, would beat up the really crappy teams in the conference and contend for conference titles. It was awful. Schedules were incredibly unfair.

I could see ESPN agreeing to modest increases in fees if they were allowed to pick the 3 opponents for each school using the 3-5-5 model.

Probably would end up like this:

Clemson: Miami, Florida State, UNC
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech
Miami: Clemson, Florida State, BC
UNC: Clemson, Duke, NC State
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Duke, Syracuse
BC: Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami
Syracuse: BC, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech
Duke: UNC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, NC State. Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Virginia, UL, Wake Forest
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh: BC, UL Syracuse
NC State: UNC, UL, Wake Forest
Louisville: NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech

It would probably be better for Syracuse but would be the worse setup possible if the goal is to get an ACC team into the college football playoff. If it expands as expected, probably not quite as big of a deal but you want to give schools in your conference the best possible chance to win an NC.

This would not do that. At all.

The ACC has a long and distinguished history though of making awful long term decisions for minor short term money. Let’s see if they have learned anything from all the mistakes.

No UVa-UNC, no dice. Neither will accept "taking one for the team" and not playing every year.

 

[721Comstock]

No UVa-UNC, no dice. Neither will accept "taking one for the team" and not playing every year.

Yeah, this.

There may be a few rivalries that get broken up in this process, but UNC/UVA will NOT be one of them.

 

[Cuse'91]

Yeah, this.

There may be a few rivalries that get broken up in this process, but UNC/UVA will NOT be one of them.

Question is: Is UNC v. UVA a B1G Conference game in a few years?

 

[Hoo's That]

Question is: Is UNC v. UVA a B1G Conference game in a few years?

At one time it was a distinct possibility. This post by elimunelson has made me feel a bit warmer and fuzzier that it won't happen.

I spoke to someone who would know at BC. BC, UNC, Duke, Stanford, ND, Northwestern, Syracuse are chatting more than you think. At the president level.

It may not be a traditional Downsize but when the teams that splinter their football teams into money makers(think SEC), we will be with the above schools in some sort of consortium that emphasize sports and academics within college framework.

We will be fine but we will keep sports with college ecosystem

I don’t think the ND AD spoke without something behind it on timing and future.

ND has already laid down a marker that it will not play in a division that doesn't require its players to go to class. Seeing UNC in this group speaking similar language allays a concern that I had that they would try to go off with Clemson and the SEC. UVa also will not play in a division that does not require its players to go to class, and, I'm hoping, would refuse to play anyone that doesn't require its players to go to class. I think the conferences as they exist now will all implode and undergo a total reorganization with a greater emphasis on regional play.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

At one time it was a distinct possibility. This post by elimunelson has made me feel a bit warmer and fuzzier that it won't happen.


ND has already laid down a marker that it will not play in a division that doesn't require its players to go to class. Seeing UNC in this group speaking similar language allays a concern that I had that they would try to go off with Clemson and the SEC. UVa also will not play in a division that does not require its players to go to class, and, I'm hoping, would refuse to play anyone that doesn't require its players to go to class. I think the conferences as they exist now will all implode and undergo a total reorganization with a greater emphasis on regional play.

I would love for things to be more regional and smaller. But the TV money will still be there to keep these conferences intact. If the ACC only loses a few teams to Semi Pro, wouldn't the TV money still be better at 10 teams rather than splitting in half? Also I think we will see a B1G Semi Pro and a B1G Academic, so I can see them expanding to 10 and 10.

 

[Chip]

No UVa-UNC, no dice. Neither will accept "taking one for the team" and not playing every year.

I assume everything starts with UVA-UNC and builds from there.

Miami-FSU as well, but different kind of importance.

What else is protected class vs a bunch of wish lists? Maybe UVA-VT? Some inter-Carolina matchups?

 

[orangecuse]

No UVa-UNC, no dice. Neither will accept "taking one for the team" and not playing every year.

No doubt! Alsacs hasn't been around lately, but he has done more than an admirable job explaining this in the past, at least IMO.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I assume everything starts with UVA-UNC and builds from there.

Miami-FSU as well, but different kind of importance.

What else is protected class vs a bunch of wish lists? Maybe UVA-VT? Some inter-Carolina matchups?

The ACC needs to create some type of standard. No one cares about UNC vs Duke. So if the ACC is leaning toward made for TV matchups, how can you justify keeping that game? And if you do keep that game, some other school who loses a rival game will be like What?

IMO the ACC should try to keep as many games that have been played 60 or more times as possible. There are 15 such series, 13 of which are currently played yearly. 12 of those 13 can be preserved in a 3-5/5 system.

 

[All4SU]

At one time it was a distinct possibility. This post by elimunelson has made me feel a bit warmer and fuzzier that it won't happen.


ND has already laid down a marker that it will not play in a division that doesn't require its players to go to class. Seeing UNC in this group speaking similar language allays a concern that I had that they would try to go off with Clemson and the SEC. UVa also will not play in a division that does not require its players to go to class, and, I'm hoping, would refuse to play anyone that doesn't require its players to go to class. I think the conferences as they exist now will all implode and undergo a total reorganization with a greater emphasis on regional play.

The semi-pro schools/conference/league will get away with this by making classes optional. Then they will make up phony degrees like bachelor of science in professional athletics or NIL self branding.

 

[cuseincincy]

Gimme BC and Pitt and call it a day.

Pass. I'm selfish and want a game in Louisville every other year. BC is Doug Flutie away from being Temple imo. No one really cares about playing BC, they just like the proximity for road games and Boston is a great town to visit. But as I said, I'm selfish and live 90 minutes away from Papa John's (see earlier post about irrelevance of changing of stadium names!)

 

[Chip]

The ACC needs to create some type of standard. No one cares about UNC vs Duke. So if the ACC is leaning toward made for TV matchups, how can you justify keeping that game? And if you do keep that game, some other school who loses a rival game will be like What?

IMO the ACC should try to keep as many games that have been played 60 or more times as possible. There are 15 such series, 13 of which are currently played yearly. 12 of those 13 can be preserved in a 3-5/5 system.

That's why I think UVA-UNC because it's happening no matter what. Miami-FSU because, although not the game of the 90s, still has TV appeal.

After that all bets are off. League will do what's in its best interest. You'd think some schools will be able to influence the process, but who knows.

I like the idea of keeping long running games, but it's not priority. So many rivalries have been ripped up over the years across college football. I think the ACC is proud of UVA-UNC, but that's it. The rest may have to play every 2 years instead.

 

[Orangefizz]

I spoke to someone who would know at BC. BC, UNC, Duke, Stanford, ND, Northwesfern, Syracuse are chatting more than you think. At the president level.

It may not be a traditional Downsize but when the teams that splinter their football teams into money makers(think SEC), we will be with the above schools in some sort of consortium that emphasize sports and academics within college framework.

We will be fine but we will keep sports with college ecosystem

I don’t think the ND AD spoke without something behind it on timing and future.

Boston College (MA)
Syracuse (NY)
Rutgers (NJ)
Pittsburgh (PA)
Notre Dame (IN)
Purdue (IN)
Northwestern (IL)
Virginia (VA)
North Carolina (NC)
Duke (NC)
Vanderbilt (TN)
Wake Forest (NC)
Georgia Tech (GA)
Miami (FL)
Stanford (CA)

Louisville, VT, NC St, Clemson, FSU to join the $EC professional division

 

[cuseincincy]

The ACC needs to create some type of standard. No one cares about UNC vs Duke. So if the ACC is leaning toward made for TV matchups, how can you justify keeping that game? And if you do keep that game, some other school who loses a rival game will be like What?

IMO the ACC should try to keep as many games that have been played 60 or more times as possible. There are 15 such series, 13 of which are currently played yearly. 12 of those 13 can be preserved in a 3-5/5 system.

Agree completely about UNC-Duke. The logic of its a great basketball rivalry so should be in football is faulty. Not many would tune in to see Kentucky play Kansas on the gridiron. Likewise no one cares about Alabama - Auburn on the court.

 

[WoadBlue]

The division system was created quite a while ago by the NCAA for a D-2 conference in PA, which had grown to 12 teams and needed a way to select its champion for the NCAA playoffs. They never expected any D-1 conference to expand to 12 and be eligible for a championship game. The ACC wanted to implement 3-5-5 a while ago but the rule change which would allow it in D-1 was blocked by the SEC and B1G, who were hoping the ACC would implode and they could pick over the rubble. "Lack of foresight" didn't hold up implementation, malice on the part of the SEC and B1G did. What's really stupid about this is that the SEC and B1G superpowers would benefit by getting rid of divisions, notably Ped State.

They each wished to stifle the ACC more than they cared to help themselves.

 

[WoadBlue]

Agree completely about UNC-Duke. The logic of its a great basketball rivalry so should be in football is faulty. Not many would tune in to see Kentucky play Kansas on the gridiron. Likewise no one cares about Alabama - Auburn on the court.

UNC-Dook is simply the best all sports rivalry in the country. You don't harm it in football simply because it is very rare that both teams are ranked when they play.

The reality is that no marketing is going to make Dook versus anybody worth much in football. And Dook must play somebody.

 

[721Comstock]

Sounds like they are going for the 3+5/5 model. I really hope we get UVA as our 3rd team. That gives us a nice balance of opposites each year.

Year 1- FSU, GA Tech, UNC, Duke, VA Tech
Year 2- Miami, Clemson, NC State, Wake, Louisville

So over 4 years that would give us 4 games (1 every year) in NC, 3 games in VA, 2 games each in FL, MA, and PA (every other year), a game in GA (hopefully in non FL year), a game in SC (hopefully in non FL year), and a game in KY.



It would make the most sense for everyone to pair off by opposites.

BC - SU
Louisville - Pitt
UVA - VA Tech
UNC - NC State
Duke - Wake
Clemson - GA Tech
FSU - Miami

So for UNC they get Duke, NC State, UVA yearly then...

Year 1- BC, Pitt, Clemson, Miami, VA Tech
Year 2- SU, Louisville, GA Tech, FSU, Wake

For the 3 rivals I would go...

SU- 1. Pitt (77), 2. BC (54), 11. UVA (5)
BC- 1. SU (54), 2. Pitt (32), 4. Miami (30)
Clemson- 1. Wake (87), 2. NC State (86), 3. GA Tech (85)
Duke- 1. UNC (101), 2. Wake (97), 3. GA Tech (89)
FSU- 1. Miami (64), 6. GA Tech (25), 9. Louisville (19)
GA Tech- 1. Duke (89), 2. Clemson (85), 8. FSU (25)
Louisville- 2. FSU (19), 3. Pitt (18), 9. VA Tech (8)
Miami- 1. FSU (64), 3. VA Tech (39), 4. BC (30)
UNC- 1. UVA (116), 3. Duke (101), 4. NC State (101)
NC State- 1. Wake (114), 2. Clemson (86), 3. Duke (83)
Pitt- 1. SU (77), 3. BC (32), 6. Louisville (18)
UVA- 1. UNC (116), 2. VA Tech (98), 13. SU (5)
VA Tech- 1. UVA (98), 3. Miami (39), 13. Louisville (8)
Wake- 1. NC State (114), 3. Duke (97), 4. Clemson (87)

So everyone except Louisville gets their most played ACC opponent. And 7 of the 14 teams get 3 out of their Top 4. Also 7 of 14 get their Top 2. FSU would be the only school without 2 of their Top 4. The outlier games are SU vs UVA, FSU vs GA Tech, FSU vs Louisville, Louisville vs VA Tech. You can reduce the outliers by having SU and UVA play Louisville, and FSU play VA Tech. That would just leave FSU vs GA Tech and UVA vs Louisville as games not played very often. But IMO SU and UVA have nothing in common with Louisville and neither should play them yearly.

Well - pretty much NOBODY is a rival with Llvll, so they're getting the short end of the stick regardless.
Which is fine. FFF Llvll.

FSU's Top 5 + 1 (remaining) ACC rivals:
The Ewe - 64
NIT State - 40
Weak - 39
VT - 37
Clem - 34
GaTech - 25

Sorry, but - there is NO WAY that FSU is getting screwed outta 4 of their Top 5 rivals in this new deal.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

UNC-Dook is simply the best all sports rivalry in the country. You don't harm it in football simply because it is very rare that both teams are ranked when they play.

The reality is that no marketing is going to make Dook versus anybody worth much in football. And Dook must play somebody.

It is a cute little rivalry but you cannot keep UNC-Duke and then tell other schools that they cannot keep their rival. It isn NOT important to the ACC.