ACC Scheduling

[omniorange]

Notre Dame doesn’t do squat for the ACC Network.
Teel writes what his ACC sources tell him. He isn’t going write anything that the conference doesn’t want out.

Hail Alsacs,

Not that I expect this to change your mind much, but here is a source that basically says they always thought that an ACC linear network was "wonkers". Who would want that in an age of cord-cutters? Well, besides mentioning basketball as a prime motivator for some to sign up for the ACCN, they say this:

Most important, the ACC holds one particular trump card that could eventually prove to be extremely lucrative: Notre Dame.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-f...ghting-irish-acc-network-john-swofford-072516

I happen to agree with TerryD on this (which the article doesn't address) that Notre Dame was the key reason behind the stabilization of the conference in 2013 (maybe this is colored by the fact that I also believe that without the earlier additions of Pitt and SU, ND never joins). But I can understand a different point of view on this as well. But to say that ND "doesn't do squat for the ACC Network" is not accurate, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

Duke-Wake??

Sorry, if that’s one of your examples you’re further proving my point.

They are NC private schools and have a rivalry. They are looked near each other. You Duke wants to play BC, UL, SU more or Wake?
They actually have history with Wake.

 

[HtownOrange]

IIRC the ACCN money that was discussed there doesn’t include footbal money, which is under a separate contract. ND has a full slate of Olympic sports teams which will appear on the ACCN, so they get and deserve a full share of ACCN money.

Add to that the ND games at ACC team home games, even if not broadcast on the ACCN live, the replays will be on the ACCN.

 

[Briancuse]

Alex Wilson game.
Duke vs. Syracuse - Game Summary - November 8, 2014 - ESPN

Don't know why that game is drawing a blank for me.

 

[Chris02M]

Don't know why that game is drawing a blank for me.

because of the awfulness of the game

 

[MSOrange]

Don't know why that game is drawing a blank for me.

I had a Toastmasters event that day so I recorded it. Accidentally saw the score and for the only time in my life, I didn't bother watching. I was done with Shafer. Good grief, we had Austin Wilson and Mitch Kimble playing QB

 

[omniorange]

the coastal division teams have no interest in changing divisions so its either status quo or get the 335 passed

Correct. The Coastal division would be fine and not detrimental to the ACC overall IF Miami and VT were operating at Old Big East levels and Georgia Tech was consistently a good team about every 4 years as they once were (2006, 2009, 2014). But that simply hasn't been the case for any of three.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Hoo's That]

The crossover rival is pointless and is the main reason it takes a dozen years to cycle through a home and home with half the teams in the conference.

Going to 9 conference games a year will cut down on the length of the cycle. When it was 12 teams, we could get away with 8 games because you played a home-and-home before someone went off your schedule. The 9 games is a bone of contention because of the annual FSU-Fla, Ga Tech-UGa, and Clemson-USC-e games taking away the opportunity to schedule an OOC cupcake.

It’s not pointless.
Clemson-Ga. Tech have a long time rivalry.
Same for UNC-NCSU, Duke-Wake, and Miami-FSU.
Only ones that aren’t necessary are UVA-UL, BC-VPI, SU-Pitt.

Clemson-Ga Tech isn't as old a rivalry as dook-Ga Tech. They've been playing every year since 1937 and, IIRC, dook was one of the drivers to get Ga Tech to join the ACC. UVa-UL is a made-up rivalry because that slot was originally UVa-UMd. When the Twerps left, the ACC simply crossed out Maryland on everyone's schedules in every sport and wrote in Louisville. The Cards even picked up the Twerps' home-away rotations in the Olympic sports. If the Twerps played someone at home their last year in, Lousiville played them on the road their first year in. BC-VPI was established as a "rivalry" because of who was supposed to get that slot in 2003.

Exactly, the solution is going without divisions with a 3-5-5 scheduling model. This way every team plays every other team at least twice every 4 years, in other words more often than they play ND. What a novel concept, playing a full conference member more often than playing the Irish.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC can adopt the 3-5-5 model any time it wants. Under the current NCAA rules, it would also mean giving up the championship game.

 

[Alsacs]

Going to 9 conference games a year will cut down on the length of the cycle. When it was 12 teams, we could get away with 8 games because you played a home-and-home before someone went off your schedule. The 9 games is a bone of contention because of the annual FSU-Fla, Ga Tech-UGa, and Clemson-USC-e games taking away the opportunity to schedule an OOC cupcake.

Clemson-Ga Tech isn't as old a rivalry as dook-Ga Tech. They've been playing every year since 1937 and, IIRC, dook was one of the drivers to get Ga Tech to join the ACC. UVa-UL is a made-up rivalry because that slot was originally UVa-UMd. When the Twerps left, the ACC simply crossed out Maryland on everyone's schedules in every sport and wrote in Louisville. The Cards even picked up the Twerps' home-away rotations in the Olympic sports. If the Twerps played someone at home their last year in, Lousiville played them on the road their first year in. BC-VPI was established as a "rivalry" because of who was supposed to get that slot in 2003.

The ACC can adopt the 3-5-5 model any time it wants. Under the current NCAA rules, it would also mean giving up the championship game.

The 3-5-5 wouldn’t impact the ACC championship game at all.
The NCAA doesn’t care what teams are in what divisions. They just require 2 divisions to have a championship game.
The conference could changes divisions every year and the NCAA wouldn’t care as long as their were 2 divisions.

 

[longtimefan]

FSU, Clemson, and Ga Tech play huge games against their in-state rivals every year.

Who's always against 9 conference games... FSU, Clemson,and Ga Tech.

And Louisville. (I know--they're easy to forget.)

 

[longtimefan]

So they're just not charitable enough?

Big East was a mish mash of football schools and Olympic sports only schools. Based on where football headed, it had no chance of survival.

If the hoops schools voted Penn State in back in the day, who knows what kind of conversation we're having. But they didn't. ND was a band aid, not a savior.

I think the angst over the handling of the Penn State situation is overblown. When the B1G came calling, the Nits would have been gone, their history as an "East Indie" be damned.

 

[longtimefan]

The Big East is why the Big East failed. Too many different agendas.

Just 2 agendas--which was plenty to blow up the conference.

 

[TheCusian]

Pod system in practice, 2 divisions on paper. Confusing for fans until you realize it’s just keeping track of your schedule and conference wins.

It would work out fine.

 

[omniorange]

The ACC can adopt the 3-5-5 model any time it wants. Under the current NCAA rules, it would also mean giving up the championship game.

True. But is there anything that prevents Swofford from putting forth a clearer proposal as to what the ACC would like to see the championship rule changed to rather than simply stating that it should be up to the individual conference to decide if they want a championship game and up to the conference how it determines the two teams to participate in the championship should the conference choose to forgo divisions?

With this laissez faire approach, is it any wonder the Big Ten and the SEC somehow got the notion that what a conference might do with such an open-ended proposal is adopt something that was so totally unlike what the others do that they were uncomfortable passing it? My gut instinct tells me Delany saw this initiative as a possible way to get ND which plays 5 ACC games annually somehow qualified for the ACC Championship game. We all know ACC teams would never allow that to happen and simple word crafting such as, "in order for a team to participate in the league championship game, they must play the same number of conference games as everyone else in the league" might have resulted in a more favorable view of the change, but somehow Swofford seemed more determine to be vague about, even to the point of saying over and over and over again that the ACC probably wouldn't even change a thing.

To me, I have to ask if Swofford truly cared about getting the change at all because he knew the majority, if not all, of the Coastal teams (the programs he wants to cater to) were fine with everything as is, since there have been several times that teams have wanted to see the structure revisited or at the very least divisions altered and each time it seems to leak out there is an 8-6 split with the majority in favor of no change.

I wonder if in order to placate the minority who want some kind of change he co-sponsored the rule change but never truly put up much of a fight to get the rule passed, which in turn gave him cover with the minority. In the meantime, valuable TV asset games like Clemson vs Miami, Clemson vs VT, and FSU vs VT are not being played enough. Even in assuming that in a 3-5-5 non-division schedule set-up Miami would not have Clemson as one of their three annual games, and VT would would not have either FSU or Clemson as an annual opponent - even so over a twelve year period those three games would each be played six times instead of the current two times.

Think about that - for a league STARVING for marquee TV games, the conference does nothing to enhance it's long-term stability by providing TV with conference games they know will increase the TV contract's value. In this instance, the league is fortunate to have the ND deal and the SEC out-of-conference games they schedule (and I am not referring to either the UGA-GT or Clemson-South Carolina games since they are rarely over 3 million viewer type games).

From 2013 through the middle of this 2018 season, the ACC has had 30 games have 5 million plus viewers. Five of those games were the ACC Championship game. Four of those games were ND games at the ACC home venue. Ten of those games were OCC games played at the ACC home venue or a one-off game played at a neutral site. Of those 10, one of them was Ohio State @ VT and the other nine were games against the SEC.

The remaining 11 were ACC regular season conference games:

2016 - UL vs Clem - 9.294 million viewers
2014 - FSU vs Miami - 8.740 million viewers
2013 - Miami vs FSU - 8.350 million viewers
2015 - FSU vs Clem - 7.563 million viewers
2014 - Clem vs FSU - 7.340 million viewers
2016 - FSU vs UL - 6.216 million viewers
2013 - FSU vs Clem - 5.680 million viewers
2018 - VT vs FSU - 5.576 million viewers
2016 - FSU vs Miami - 5.540 million viewers
2016 - Clem vs FSU - 5.380 million viewers
2017 - Clem vs UL - 5.206 million viewers

As we can see annual games like FSU vs Clemson and FSU vs Miami tend to draw large numbers on a regular basis. The annual VT vs Miami tends not to draw the larger numbers most likely due to neither operating at the level they once did and that makes them upset prone against the other good but not great Coastal teams. The last Clemson vs VT regular season game in 2017 drew 4.69 million viewers which is great (I used the arbitrary 5 million viewers to limit the number of games I had to type above ) but the last Miami vs Clemson regular season game in 2016 only drew 2.6 million viewers. This points out another problem with having these games spread out so far apart. The chances of them both being good in those particular two years out of twelve that they play in the regular season are not great.

Anyway, end of long rant.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Pod system in practice, 2 divisions on paper. Confusing for fans until you realize it’s just keeping track of your schedule and conference wins.

It would work out fine.

It certainly is a possible way to get around the current rule that exist, but you are definitely downplaying the confusion for fans and considering how the ACC got to the current set-up perhaps avoiding thinking about the viability of it?

I visit lots of message boards and hear fans say the very same thing. Then someone asks them to do a mock draft of how that works and if they bother to attempt it, they are usually torn to shreds because it is easy to conceive of the principle behind the set-up but the devil, as usual, is in the details.

Examples I have seen:

Some suggest one pod could be FSU-Miami-Clemson-GT and the usual counter-arguments are that is too tough a pod (which could hurt the teams the league/TV want to get to the CFP), "but GT must play Duke annually", "Miami must play VT annually", etc.

The other pod that some fans believe is a slam dunk is the UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake pod. Until the counter-arguments begin - too weak a pod, Duke must play GT annually, UNC must play UVA annually, etc.

And the same is probably true of mock 3-5-5 proposals as well. But the difference is that at least it begins with something sports fans are used to as in ACC men's basketball where there are two annual opponents (home-and-away), an additional two more home-and-away opponents that are rotated over the years, and then 10 other opponents you are NOT playing home-and-away that year you play 5 on the road and the other 5 at home. Just in football get rid of the home and away the same year, expand the two annual opponents to three and then take the remaining 10 teams and play 5 of them in year 1 and year 2 and then play the other five year 3 and year 4.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Hoo's That]

True. But is there anything that prevents Swofford from putting forth a clearer proposal as to what the ACC would like to see the championship rule changed to rather than simply stating that it should be up to the individual conference to decide if they want a championship game and up to the conference how it determines the two teams to participate in the championship should the conference choose to forgo divisions?

With this laissez faire approach, is it any wonder the Big Ten and the SEC somehow got the notion that what a conference might do with such an open-ended proposal is adopt something that was so totally unlike what the others do that they were uncomfortable passing it? My gut instinct tells me Delany saw this initiative as a possible way to get ND which plays 5 ACC games annually somehow qualified for the ACC Championship game. We all know ACC teams would never allow that to happen and simple word crafting such as, "in order for a team to participate in the league championship game, they must play the same number of conference games as everyone else in the league" might have resulted in a more favorable view of the change, but somehow Swofford seemed more determine to be vague about, even to the point of saying over and over and over again that the ACC probably wouldn't even change a thing.

To me, I have to ask if Swofford truly cared about getting the change at all because he knew the majority, if not all, of the Coastal teams (the programs he wants to cater to) were fine with everything as is, since there have been several times that teams have wanted to see the structure revisited or at the very least divisions altered and each time it seems to leak out there is an 8-6 split with the majority in favor of no change.

I wonder if in order to placate the minority who want some kind of change he co-sponsored the rule change but never truly put up much of a fight to get the rule passed, which in turn gave him cover with the minority. In the meantime, valuable TV asset games like Clemson vs Miami, Clemson vs VT, and FSU vs VT are not being played enough. Even in assuming that in a 3-5-5 non-division schedule set-up Miami would not have Clemson as one of their three annual games, and VT would would not have either FSU or Clemson as an annual opponent - even so over a twelve year period those three games would each be played six times instead of the current two times.

Think about that - for a league STARVING for marquee TV games, the conference does nothing to enhance it's long-term stability by providing TV with conference games they know will increase the TV contract's value. In this instance, the league is fortunate to have the ND deal and the SEC out-of-conference games they schedule (and I am not referring to either the UGA-GT or Clemson-South Carolina games since they are rarely over 3 million viewer type games).

From 2013 through the middle of this 2018 season, the ACC has had 30 games have 5 million plus viewers. Five of those games were the ACC Championship game. Four of those games were ND games at the ACC home venue. Ten of those games were OCC games played at the ACC home venue or a one-off game played at a neutral site. Of those 10, one of them was Ohio State @ VT and the other nine were games against the SEC.

The remaining 11 were ACC regular season conference games:

2016 - UL vs Clem - 9.294 million viewers
2014 - FSU vs Miami - 8.740 million viewers
2013 - Miami vs FSU - 8.350 million viewers
2015 - FSU vs Clem - 7.563 million viewers
2014 - Clem vs FSU - 7.340 million viewers
2016 - FSU vs UL - 6.216 million viewers
2013 - FSU vs Clem - 5.680 million viewers
2018 - VT vs FSU - 5.576 million viewers
2016 - FSU vs Miami - 5.540 million viewers
2016 - Clem vs FSU - 5.380 million viewers
2017 - Clem vs UL - 5.206 million viewers

As we can see annual games like FSU vs Clemson and FSU vs Miami tend to draw large numbers on a regular basis. The annual VT vs Miami tends not to draw the larger numbers most likely due to neither operating at the level they once did and that makes them upset prone against the other good but not great Coastal teams. The last Clemson vs VT regular season game in 2017 drew 4.69 million viewers which is great (I used the arbitrary 5 million viewers to limit the number of games I had to type above ) but the last Miami vs Clemson regular season game in 2016 only drew 2.6 million viewers. This points out another problem with having these games spread out so far apart. The chances of them both being good in those particular two years out of twelve that they play in the regular season are not great.

Anyway, end of long rant.

Cheers,
Neil

I have to disagree. Swofford really wanted 3-5-5, but the $EC and B1G voted it down because they really and truely still believe that they can get the ACC to implode and they'll get to pick over the remnants. It was all laid out. Under 3-5-5, the two teams with the best records would be in the championship game. There was no idea of "sneaking ND" into the game. We don't like the idea of playing anybody in the Atlantic Division other than Louisville once every 6 years. I don't think anybody in the Coastal Division likes that idea any more than we do. We actually like playing Wake even though their QBs have 10 years of elegibility. It's another game that is easy for our fanbase to attend. Same with NC State. Clemson is a tough ticket because they're sold out so much. Same with FSU. While we don't have a lot of alums in Kentucky, I'm sure a number come up from Nashville and Memphis for UofL. Boston? Sure. if anywhere, the "toughest" place to get our fans to would be SU.

Most of our fanbase is pretty reasonable on expectations. We expect UVa to win 7-9 games on a routine basis with occasional forays into double digits. We'd rarely be in the championship game under the present system, let alone 3-5-5 and we're OK with that.

 

[omniorange]

I have to disagree. Swofford really wanted 3-5-5, but the $EC and B1G voted it down because they really and truely still believe that they can get the ACC to implode and they'll get to pick over the remnants. It was all laid out. Under 3-5-5, the two teams with the best records would be in the championship game. There was no idea of "sneaking ND" into the game. We don't like the idea of playing anybody in the Atlantic Division other than Louisville once every 6 years. I don't think anybody in the Coastal Division likes that idea any more than we do. We actually like playing Wake even though their QBs have 10 years of elegibility. It's another game that is easy for our fanbase to attend. Same with NC State. Clemson is a tough ticket because they're sold out so much. Same with FSU. While we don't have a lot of alums in Kentucky, I'm sure a number come up from Nashville and Memphis for UofL. Boston? Sure. if anywhere, the "toughest" place to get our fans to would be SU.

Most of our fanbase is pretty reasonable on expectations. We expect UVa to win 7-9 games on a routine basis with occasional forays into double digits. We'd rarely be in the championship game under the present system, let alone 3-5-5 and we're OK with that.

From the very beginning of the process until the proposal was modified, Swofford not being clear about HOW the ACC would use the original proposed rule change doomed it to failure:

The ACC has 14 football teams and a conference championship game, so it's unclear what agenda the conference may have to develop the new legislation.

“I think there's some belief that (the) ACC would play three divisions, have (the) two highest-ranked (teams) play in postseason,” Bob Bowlsby, Big 12 commissioner and chairman of the new NCAA Football Oversight Committee, told CBS. “Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision.

“But because the ACC has persisted in saying, ‘We're not sure what we'll do,' there's probably a little bit of a shadow over it. In the end, I don't think it'll be able to hold it up. We'll probably have it in place for '16.”

Report: Big 12, ACC propose rule changes for conference championship games

There are others toward the end where Delany talks about why the original wording of the rule change would not pass and had to be modified. But I have presented those in the past on various message boards.

Cheers,
Neil