ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[sutomcat]

But split them! One home, one away.

Word! Get that fixed as part of this mess!

Assuming the protected rivalries will be for massive rivalries that must happen every year and for the matchups that draw the biggest TV ratings. This is what the B1G did.

We won’t see all the other schools in the conference as much as a true full rotation would give us but I think even with the new teams, we will still rotate through all the schools a lot faster then we would have using the old scheduling rotation.

 

[SU94]

Word! Get that fixed as part of this mess!

Assuming the protected rivalries will be for massive rivalries that must happen every year and for the matchups that draw the biggest TV ratings. This is what the B1G did.

We won’t see all the other schools in the conference as much as a true full rotation would give us but I think even with the new teams, we will still rotate through all the schools a lot faster then we would have using the old scheduling rotation.

I'm sure with the new rotation, we won't host Miami until 2032 or something similar(!).

You know what would be best for the ACC in the long run? And I absolutely mean this, but if one of the northern teams (SU, Pitt, BC) really became a consistent 10-win team it would benefit the conference. Pitt has a solid 3-year run when they had an NFL caliber QB.

But I am picturing something akin to what Penn State is for the B1G powers Michigan/OSU. A team to legitimately challenge the accepted ACC powers: FSU and Clemson. Let's tap into the undercurrent of North-South wariness/skepticism and get this league humming.

 

[orangecuse]

Wonder if it includes Clemson, FSU and UNC for all 7?

Wonder if it includes UVA?

An excellent poster in these parts...once upon a time, not so long ago (sounds like an epic Bon Jovi classic ) strongly opined that UNC & UVA are the most significant foundations of the ACC, which I wholeheartedly agreed with. If UNC is gone, there's a very, very strong likelihood that so is Virginia, regardless of what they voted on a month ago.

 

[baggerbob]

Article points to uneven annual matchups, like the Big 10. Maybe 10-15 protected annual matchups. At most that means Syracuse has two (BC and Pitt), which I’d be fine with.

Wouldn't mind never seeing FSU anytime within the next 10 years. Would rather play Miami.

 

[orangefog]

But split them! One home, one away.

Or one away and one at Yankee Stadium?

 

[DPCuse]

Wouldn't mind never seeing FSU anytime within the next 10 years. Would rather play Miami.

Especially with Cristobal at the helm. Maybe our fans would stay until the end given his decision making.

 

[hoopsupstate]

How can the ACC explain how Miami has not played at Syracuse since we joined the ACC nine years ago?

 

[CU44SE]

I understand we have played Pitt for years. But I don’t ever think I have ever gotten the feeling of it being a rivalry that the ACC continues to try and throw down our throat because we came in together. I would rather play BC, Va Tech, Miami, WVU, Louisville, Maryland. Even some of these teams that we have not played consistently or in a while, I view all of them as more entertaining opponents, potential rivals. I view Pitt as just another team that is in our conference, akin to a FSU, Georgia tech, etc. It probably doesn’t help that they have consistently beat up on us but im just so over and uninterested in these games.

 

[kcsu]

Agree. Biggest thing I wanted here was relief from playing FSU every season. It is not a rivalry game and should be one of the first existing ‘rivalry’ games to get the ax.

It will be interesting to see if we keep BC and Pitt. That would be nice for those of us that travel to football games.

I would welcome Cal or Stanford in place of FSU. We have a solid following on the west coast

 

[atom58]

This is a bit off the current "exchange of views" but I found this excerpt interesting - it comes from a positive essay written after the big Sept. 1 announcement by the fairly famous sportswriter (and Cal homer) Michael Silver, now at the SF Chronicle newspaper:

"The only acceptable choices for Cal and Stanford were to join one of the remaining Power 5 (now 4) conferences. The Big Ten, backed by Fox, dangled what amounted to a disrespectfully low-ball offer. The ACC, controlled by ESPN, provided a less odious scenario, with a clearer path toward full membership. Resistance, primarily from Florida State, led ESPN to explore a Plan B that could have landed the two Bay Area schools in the Big 12."

I will add, fortunately for us, that did not happen.

Cal, Stanford join the wrong-coast ACC, and it’s OK to embrace that

Cal and Stanford found their sports future on the other side of the country, going from the Pac-12 to the Atlantic Coast Conference. Here’s why it makes sense.

www.sfchronicle.com

 

[atom58]

Very nice catch. If I recall correctly, Teel is well connected inside the ACC. If he reports something, you can take it to the bank!

 

[SmilinBob]

Wonder if it includes UVA?

An excellent poster in these parts...once upon a time, not so long ago (sounds like an epic Bon Jovi classic ) strongly opined that UNC & UVA are the most significant foundations of the ACC, which I wholeheartedly agreed with. If UNC is gone, there's a very, very strong likelihood that so is Virginia, regardless of what they voted on a month ago.

I've always thought UV would go to the big 10 with UNC as well. I guess we'll see.

 

[orange79]

Very nice catch. If I recall correctly, Teel is well connected inside the ACC. If he reports something, you can take it to the bank!

Correct. It will be a sad day when David Teel retires. There appears to be no one on the horizon as skilled and with as many connections as he has.

 

[cusefan88]

Correct. It will be a sad day when David Teel retires. There appears to be no one on the horizon as skilled and with as many connections as he has.

He's a sports writer from another time. Hyper-local, respected, always right instead of being first.

 

[Hoo's That]

Does that mean 2 + 6? It must. That way you play everyone 3x over 7 years.

There is an implication in the article of a B1G-like dozen or so protected games but no one fixed in place otherwise. Ped State has no annual opponent in the new alignment. So much for bringing in the Twerps and Rutgahs (which play a protected game) to keep them in the conference.

 

[SmilinBob]

Correct. It will be a sad day when David Teel retires. There appears to be no one on the horizon as skilled and with as many connections as he has.

I heard his buyout is only 10k and is SEC bound in 24.

 

[Toga]

Correct. It will be a sad day when David Teel retires. There appears to be no one on the horizon as skilled and with as many connections as he has.

While still doing online stuff, I thought he retired from his main job a couple of years ago.

 

[NineOneSeven]

PAC12 has been the most exciting conference this year without a doubt.

 

[SmilinBob]

PAC12 has been the most exciting conference this year without a doubt.

I'm curious on how many PAC refs are going to the Big 10 and 12? Hopefully not the ACC.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There is an implication in the article of a B1G-like dozen or so protected games but no one fixed in place otherwise. Ped State has no annual opponent in the new alignment. So much for bringing in the Twerps and Rutgahs (which play a protected game) to keep them in the conference.

It just doesn't make sense. So much easier to go 2 perms for everyone. So which games stay? What do you do with UNC who has 4 rivalry games? That is why 4 perms is even better.

Cal-Stanford
UNC-UVA (Duke?, NC State? / VA Tech?)
FSU-Miami

Who makes the cut after that? Would be so much easier to drop one team from the current 3 and then have Cal-Stanford-SMU play each other. That gives everyone over 7 years at least: 3 trips to Cali, 3 trips to Fla, 1-2 trips to Texas, 3 trips to the Northeast, 3 trips to VA, 6 trips to NC, 3 trips to GA/SC, and 3 trips to WPA/KY. Depending on whom your 2 perms are you will have 2-4 more trips in a given area.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I listed the prior yearly games from the current 3 perm rivals. There are 15 games within that. So which ones get cut? Wouldn't it be easier to go to 2 perms vs keeping some of these?

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

Plus the Stanford-Cal game.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

But think of the money Ohio St received.

 

[Hoo's That]

I listed the prior yearly games from the current 3 perm rivals. There are 15 games within that. So which ones get cut? Wouldn't it be easier to go to 2 perms vs keeping some of these?

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

Plus the Stanford-Cal game.

Ga Tech would like to drop Clemson and go back to playing Duke. Until this year they had played every year since 1937 and that game may have been an impetus for Ga Tech to join the ACC.

Louisville only plays UVa because it replaced Maryland. All 3 fanbases want that game dropped in favor of Louisville-VPI.

Although UVa has played Duke every year since 1963 that game is not as important as UNC and VPI

VPI's designated rival is BC right now. It only played Pitt regularly because both were in the Coastal Division.

 

[OrangeXtreme]