Just how close was the ACC to imploading?

[Scooch]

It makes no sense to have a conference where you can play a team in the other division at home once in 12 years.

I was thinking about that on Sunday. The Pats will play New Orleans more often in total, and more often at home, than Syracuse plays 43% of the teams in our own conference.

It is asinine.

 

[Alsacs]

The 9 game schedule will happen once the ACC, ND, FSU, and Clemson can alleviate the problem Clemson and FSU would have every 6 years with a road game @ND by those schools and a 9 game ACC schedule and them only having 6 possible home games in those seasons which can't happen for the schools to pay their bills in the AD they need with 7 home games.

 

[Lou_C]

This article was instructive for one very important reason only...it proved that you cannot assume that decision makers at the ACC and ACC schools "get it." I know I'm pretty new to the board, but for someone not in the media and with no contacts, I've been pretty active accross the reallignment-verse for years. I (as well as some others) were raising holy hell about the problems, particularly financial problems, facing the ACC. Nobody wanted to believe that the conference was oblivious to the issues, but this proves what some of us suspected...that they really were. There was no reason to be...this stuff was very public information, it's just that nobody made it their job to understand, the way some of us made it their hobby.

Sorry for the length, but I'll cut an paste my thoughts on this that I did for a piece on another site. Just skip it if it's too long for you. This comes off kind of negative, but let me be clear that I believe that right now, as a result of this whole mess, the ACC gets it, FSU administration get it, UNC administration get it, etc. I'm quite confident that everyone is on board now going forward. But this makes clear that 2-3 years ago, when some people were screaming their head off about this, it was actually true that the conference and it's members (FSU included if not first and foremost) were woefully underinformed.

The Charlotte Observer filed Freedom of Information requests to get a hold of emails in the UNC athletic department during realignment fever around the departure of Maryland.

Must read for Realignment Junkies

It's a great read. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking, no record of contact between UNC or UVA and other conferences...in some ways it's just a confirmation of what we already know about what went down.

But there is one very incredible takeaway...while this board and others were discussing the very real concerns regarding the financial landscape of college football and the ACC's position of weakness, the actual decision makers and people "in the know" were woefully ignorant of the situation.

The mantra to just "trust the ACC" or "trust Swofford" or "trust FSU's leadership" was proven woefully lacking. People like Ben and Nole55 and Seminole and myself and many others have been basically trying to sound the alarm the last few years, because it looked like nobody in charge recognized what was going on. Especially since the PAC signed their deal, which immediately reflected a MAJOR problem and the fact the ACC had badly misplayed their TV contract. But it goes all the way back to the SEC ESPN deal, the emergence of the BTN, and maybe even the 2003 expansion, that it just didn't seem like the ACC "got it."

The writing has been on the wall for YEARS, and it's been in big broad strokes for some time. And some of us have been talking about them for a long time, and still having people say things like "Don't worry, ESPN is regretting overpaying the SEC."

I really think nobody wanted to believe that some nobodies on some message boards knew more about the realities (just from information in mainstream sources) than the folks in the actual positions of power, but it's now very, very clear that was the case.

Case in point:
Hours after Maryland announced its move, Sports Illustrated posted a story on its website that detailed how much more money Maryland would make in the Big Ten. The first paragraph read: "The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten. …"

Martina Ballen, the Chief Financial Officer of the UNC athletic department, emailed the link to Cunningham and UNC’s associate athletic directors. She included a short note: "Wow! Big $$$ if this is accurate."What...the...?
How could they not know the relative financial situation of the two conferences, while we were discussing it ad nauseum on this board and others?

Or this gem...
Other emails Cunningham received expressed shock that Maryland would leave, and they questioned whether the money in the Big Ten was that much greater than in the ACC. One came from Cappy Gagnon, a longtime Notre Dame athletic department employee who retired in 2011.

"I don’t get this one," Gagnon wrote to Cunningham, who started his college athletic administration career at Notre Dame. "Maryland is going to be nobody in the Big Ten, with zero natural rivals and long travel. Is the money from the Big Ten Network that much greater than the ACC TV money?"
Excuse me, but are you -ing kidding me?

I'm not trying to toot my own horn (if I could then I'd never leave the house!) but this is scary, and it totally vindicates that collectively we weren't crazy to have serious concerns that the ACC knew what the hell it was doing prior to about 24 months ago.

I am actually quite confident that FSU, by luck or planning, came out of the whole period in the best scenario that it had available. I'm ready to move forward for now. I'm actually pretty confident that they may actually "get it" in Greensboro, as well as Tallahassee and Chapel Hill and Durham.

But for anyone who was ready to put their full faith in the administration of the ACC or the schools on the matter of money in athletics, this is a chilling, chilling read.

 

[irishredhomebrew]

The 9 game schedule will happen once the ACC, ND, FSU, and Clemson can alleviate the problem Clemson and FSU would have every 6 years with a road game @ND by those schools and a 9 game ACC schedule and them only having 6 possible home games in those seasons which can't happen for the schools to pay their bills in the AD they need with 7 home games.

It is not just the ND year for Clemson that is a problem. The 9-game schedule would instantly kill our chances to do home-and-home series with Marquee teams outside of the SCAR game.

If the SCAR game was aligned to be a home game for Clemson during the year of 4 home conference games, that would be 5 home games out of 10 games (9 conference, plus SCAR) each year. That leaves us 2 games. One game goes to one of the smaller colleges in SC (Furman, Coastal Carolina, Citadel, Wofford, SC State) at the strong "urging" of our state legislature, getting us to 6 home games spoken for each year. That leaves us with exactly 1 game left to schedule. NO power team will agree to a 1 and done without a return trip. This ruins the ability to guarantee 7 home games each year. We would have to schedule some directional college for the 7th game. Clemson would not be able to play teams like UGA, Auburn, Alabama, Texas A&M (our OOC games over the last 8 or so years).

When the 9 game schedule was originally voted in, Clemson cancelled scheduled home and homes with Ole Miss and OK State. UGA was kept with the understanding that we would take about a 4 to 5 mil hit when we play in Athens the following year because of only having 6 home games.

Following is an excerpt of an interview with our AD when the 9 game conference was initially approved:

TigerNet: With the ACC moving to a nine-game conference schedule, how is that going to affect Clemson’s non-conference schedule, specifically future games with Georgia, Ole Miss and Oklahoma St?

TDP: It is going to have an impact. I have to sit down with Dabo [Swinney] and his staff regarding our scheduling with lots of people going forward. In the old configuration what we wanted to do is play two strong teams – South Carolina being one of them – and you know we pick Auburn back up this fall and have a two game series scheduled with Georgia and then Ole Miss and Oklahoma St. Again, it comes back to scheduling philosophy and whether or not you try to retain some of those schools, which I think won't be practical at all. Because we need seven home games. Obviously with all the reports on compensation and costs going up, we can't afford to give up a seventh home game and there will probably be an adjustment there. And we are probably looking at a couple of mid-majors that will be on the home schedule.

Notice where he said there would be a couple of mid-majors the will be on the home schedule. That is because those are the teams you can pay to come to your place without a return trip. Put yourself in Clemson's place. Would you want your conference taking away your flexibility to ever do a home and home with a power school OOC? There is no fix for Clemson in this situation.

 

[Alsacs]

It is not just the ND year for Clemson that is a problem. The 9-game schedule would instantly kill our chances to do home-and-home series with Marquee teams outside of the SCAR game.

If the SCAR game was aligned to be a home game for Clemson during the year of 4 home conference games, that would be 5 home games out of 10 games (9 conference, plus SCAR) each year. That leaves us 2 games. One game goes to one of the smaller colleges in SC (Furman, Coastal Carolina, Citadel, Wofford, SC State) at the strong "urging" of our state legislature, getting us to 6 home games spoken for each year. That leaves us with exactly 1 game left to schedule. NO power team will agree to a 1 and done without a return trip. This ruins the ability to guarantee 7 home games each year. We would have to schedule some directional college for the 7th game. Clemson would not be able to play teams like UGA, Auburn, Alabama, Texas A&M (our OOC games over the last 8 or so years).

When the 9 game schedule was originally voted in, Clemson cancelled scheduled home and homes with Ole Miss and OK State. UGA was kept with the understanding that we would take about a 4 to 5 mil hit when we play in Athens the following year because of only having 6 home games.

Following is an excerpt of an interview with our AD when the 9 game conference was initially approved:

TigerNet: With the ACC moving to a nine-game conference schedule, how is that going to affect Clemson’s non-conference schedule, specifically future games with Georgia, Ole Miss and Oklahoma St?

TDP: It is going to have an impact. I have to sit down with Dabo [Swinney] and his staff regarding our scheduling with lots of people going forward. In the old configuration what we wanted to do is play two strong teams – South Carolina being one of them – and you know we pick Auburn back up this fall and have a two game series scheduled with Georgia and then Ole Miss and Oklahoma St. Again, it comes back to scheduling philosophy and whether or not you try to retain some of those schools, which I think won't be practical at all. Because we need seven home games. Obviously with all the reports on compensation and costs going up, we can't afford to give up a seventh home game and there will probably be an adjustment there. And we are probably looking at a couple of mid-majors that will be on the home schedule.

Notice where he said there would be a couple of mid-majors the will be on the home schedule. That is because those are the teams you can pay to come to your place without a return trip. Put yourself in Clemson's place. Would you want your conference taking away your flexibility to ever do a home and home with a power school OOC? There is no fix for Clemson in this situation.

I posted this previously, The ACC is working with Notre Dame to help FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson with their home game problem potentially if the ACC goes to a 9 game schedule which is likely once the B1G and SEC go 9 game schedules as well. The idea would be that in the years that ND would host FSU. Clemson, Ga. Tech in home games they would make these games their Shamrock games and play them in the Southeast Clemson in Charlotte, Florida State in Orlando/Tampa, Georgia Tech in Atlanta and while ND/NBC would control the games as home games ND would give those schools a decent pay out to compensate them when they only had 6 home games to go with 5 road games and the neutral site game. This would occur once every six years and would alleviate the lost revenue that Clemson and Florida State would get every 6 years. So the ACC is working to help FSU/Clemson.


I also discussed with another Clemson fan on here and basically he said the ND series will basically be your 2nd premium opponent twice every six years those other 4 years you guys can schedule whatever you would want. The problem for you guys is the you need 7 home games and that @ND is a problem and what I posted above is what the ACC is trying to get done.

 

[irishredhomebrew]

I posted this previously, The ACC is working with Notre Dame to help FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson with their home game problem potentially if the ACC goes to a 9 game schedule which is likely once the B1G and SEC go 9 game schedules as well. The idea would be that in the years that ND would host FSU. Clemson, Ga. Tech in home games they would make these games their Shamrock games and play them in the Southeast Clemson in Charlotte, Florida State in Orlando/Tampa, Georgia Tech in Atlanta and while ND/NBC would control the games as home games ND would give those schools a decent pay out to compensate them when they only had 6 home games to go with 5 road games and the neutral site game. This would occur once every six years and would alleviate the lost revenue that Clemson and Florida State would get every 6 years. So the ACC is working to help FSU/Clemson.


I also discussed with another Clemson fan on here and basically he said the ND series will basically be your 2nd premium opponent twice every six years those other 4 years you guys can schedule whatever you would want. The problem for you guys is the you need 7 home games and that @ND is a problem and what I posted above is what the ACC is trying to get done.

You are missing my point. It is not the Notre Dame game that is the problem. It is the 9 conference game schedule. Forget about ND for a minute and focus in on my previous post. Clemson has to have 7 home games for financial reasons. A conference slate of 9 games means 5 home one year, 4 home the next. Clemson could arrange for the SCAR game to fall as a home game when the conference slate is 4 home games. That would balance out the schedule to 5 home games each year. Clemson still needs 2 more home games, with exactly 2 games left to schedule.

Of those 2 remaining games, one goes to a smaller college in SC, such as Wofford, SC State, Furman, Coastal Carolina, Presbyterian, or The Citadel, bringing up the home slate to 6 games.

One game remains to be scheduled, and it has to be a guaranteed home game every year to meet the 7 game home slate. The only games you will get a 1 and done (no return trip) are the teams Clemson pays to come (examples would be Marshall, Ball State, Troy, etc).

Marquee OOC games would be finished (outside of the SCAR rivalry) for Clemson under the 9 game format. ND has absolutely nothing to do with this problem. To be honest, ND joining as an affiliate was the only reason the conference relented on the 9 game schedule the first time around.

Think about NEVER playing a different power outside of your conference and your one rival. You guys would still have the flexibility to have those games because you do not have that yearly rivalry game outside of the conference. 9 games make sense for you, but it is anathema to Clemson fans.

EDIT: Reread the interview snippet I posted a couple of posts up. Those comments occurred after the 9 game vote, but BEFORE Notre Dame joined as an affiliate. ND is not, and never has been the issue. Clemson had to cancel the OLE Miss and OK State games because they could not do the return trip and still have 7 home games. The only reason the UGA game this year was not preemptively cancelled was because of the groundswell of support to keep the game and take the hit next year. Luckily, the 9 game schedule was repealed.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

13 regular season games.

You got a home game, I got a home game, everybody got a home game.

 

[Alsacs]

You are missing my point. It is not the Notre Dame game that is the problem. It is the 9 conference game schedule. Forget about ND for a minute and focus in on my previous post. Clemson has to have 7 home games for financial reasons. A conference slate of 9 games means 5 home one year, 4 home the next. Clemson could arrange for the SCAR game to fall as a home game when the conference slate is 4 home games. That would balance out the schedule to 5 home games each year. Clemson still needs 2 more home games, with exactly 2 games left to schedule.

Of those 2 remaining games, one goes to a smaller college in SC, such as Wofford, SC State, Furman, Coastal Carolina, Presbyterian, or The Citadel, bringing up the home slate to 6 games.

One game remains to be scheduled, and it has to be a guaranteed home game every year to meet the 7 game home slate. The only games you will get a 1 and done (no return trip) are the teams Clemson pays to come (examples would be Marshall, Ball State, Troy, etc).

Marquee OOC games would be finished (outside of the SCAR rivalry) for Clemson under the 9 game format. ND has absolutely nothing to do with this problem. To be honest, ND joining as an affiliate was the only reason the conference relented on the 9 game schedule the first time around.

Think about NEVER playing a different power outside of your conference and your one rival. You guys would still have the flexibility to have those games because you do not have that yearly rivalry game outside of the conference. 9 games make sense for you, but it is anathema to Clemson fans.

EDIT: Reread the interview snippet I posted a couple of posts up. Those comments occurred after the 9 game vote, but BEFORE Notre Dame joined as an affiliate. ND is not, and never has been the issue. Clemson had to cancel the OLE Miss and OK State games because they could not do the return trip and still have 7 home games. The only reason the UGA game this year was not preemptively cancelled was because of the groundswell of support to keep the game and take the hit next year. Luckily, the 9 game schedule was repealed.

Well the SEC, B1G, Pac-12, Big XII will all have 9 game conference schedules in the near future and I just can't see the ACC being the only conference with an 8 game schedule. I get your problem and understand it, but it boils down to the fact you guys would have 10 game locked in and would need those games to be at home and wouldn't be able to play good non-conference series, but I see those series becoming less and less unless teams will play 6 home games occasionally which I doubt will happen, but what hurts Florida, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Kentucky is that they have to play in-state rivalry games each year and the other teams don't.

 

[Scooch]

13 regular season games.

You got a home game, I got a home game, everybody got a home game.

It'll happen, bank on it.

 

[Faegan]

I get it, but at some point a team just has to win to alter a perception. The SEC has Florida, Georgia and South Carolina on one side; Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M on the other. And yet most years someone emerges from that undefeated.

Alignment isn't what's holding back the ACC, IMHO, it's winning.

Completely agree. Regardless of how it's stacked, someone has to run the table.

 

[Faegan]

Having more good teams in your division means GOOD TV games which increases the ACC value down the road. Louisville isn't going to be top 15 every year like FSU and Clemson should be, and FSU/Clemson pushed for Louisville over UConn thus they make sense in the Atlantic. Plus, the playoff committee will look at those games and say they have played tough schedules and deserve a bid they are worthy. Moving Louisville to the Coastal makes no sense unless the ACC completely re-dos each division from scrap.

I think you underestimate Louisville in the ACC with their athletic department and Charlie Strong. They are going to be the real deal. Why would moving Louisville to the Coastal require restructuring everything (which wouldn't be a bad thing, anyway IMHO)? And it's not like the playoff committee is going to have more than one spot - at best - to dole out to the ACC. That committee will have no problem with taking... Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama... and leaving the ACC to cry in its Cheerios.

 

[Alsacs]

I think you underestimate Louisville in the ACC with their athletic department and Charlie Strong. They are going to be the real deal. Why would moving Louisville to the Coastal require restructuring everything (which wouldn't be a bad thing, anyway IMHO)? And it's not like the playoff committee is going to have more than one spot - at best - to dole out to the ACC. That committee will have no problem with taking... Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama... and leaving the ACC to cry in its Cheerios.

Again, who are you going to move from the Coastal and to the Atlantic if you want to move Louisville. Second, the SEC East has Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee all schools that have been in the top 10 a lot or have won a NC in the BCS era, and the SEC West has Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, and Auburn all that have a won a NC or been top 10 recently. The conferences want good matchups for TV. Louisville vs. Florida State and Clmeson each year are good TV draws and will increase the ACC brand. I believe in the Cardinals being a consistent top 25 in the ACC with Strong and his recruiting, but they aren't FSU and Clemson yet as they will need to show after they lose their top 3 NFL draft pick QB they can reload. You can't move Louisville to the Coastal unless you protect all the important ACC rivalry games which will be difficult and FSU and Clemson were the ones that got Louisville picked why would they want them in the Coastal and play once every 6 years. Having good teams on your schedule will help your resume for the playoffs and would you say the committee will have no problem leaving the ACC cry in its Cheerios if the ACC team has to beat another top 25 scalp for its resume like we both project Louisville to be. Who you play and beat will matter to the committee. Louisville is going to remain in the Atlantic.

 

[Toga]

It'll happen, bank on it.

Show me the money.

 

[Faegan]

Again, who are you going to move from the Coastal and to the Atlantic if you want to move Louisville.
Second, the SEC East has Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee all schools that have been in the top 10 a lot or have won a NC in the BCS era, and the SEC West has Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, and Auburn all that have a won a NC or been top 10 recently. The conferences want good matchups for TV. Louisville vs. Florida State and Clmeson each year are good TV draws and will increase the ACC brand. I believe in the Cardinals being a consistent top 25 in the ACC with Strong and his recruiting, but they aren't FSU and Clemson yet as they will need to show after they lose their top 3 NFL draft pick QB they can reload. You can't move Louisville to the Coastal unless you protect all the important ACC rivalry games which will be difficult and FSU and Clemson were the ones that got Louisville picked why would they want them in the Coastal and play once every 6 years. Having good teams on your schedule will help your resume for the playoffs and would you say the committee will have no problem leaving the ACC cry in its Cheerios if the ACC team has to beat another top 25 scalp for its resume like we both project Louisville to be. Who you play and beat will matter to the committee. Louisville is going to remain in the Atlantic.

You have to make tough choices. You can't be like a child trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Do you want to structure the league to compete with other conferences around the country and be in the tourney, or do you want to protect rivalries that really aren't rivalries? What is Notre Dame doing to schedule as many games as they are with the ACC? They are making tough choices and losing some of their Big 10 rivalries. So maybe Virginia can play VT but not Carolina, or something similar. Fundamentally, I think you are still underrating Louisville in the ACC. They have recruited incredibly well in terrible conferences. I think their ceiling is easily as high as Clemson's. Time will tell. I'll give you the last word. This is monotonous.

 

[Alsacs]

You have to make tough choices. You can't be like a child trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Do you want to structure the league to compete with other conferences around the country and be in the tourney, or do you want to protect rivalries that really aren't rivalries? What is Notre Dame doing to schedule as many games as they are with the ACC? They are making tough choices and losing some of their Big 10 rivalries. So maybe Virginia can play VT but not Carolina, or something similar. Fundamentally, I think you are still underrating Louisville in the ACC. They have recruited incredibly well in terrible conferences. I think their ceiling is easily as high as Clemson's. Time will tell. I'll give you the last word. This is monotonous.

I agree with you on Louisville they have a lot of potential, but only as long as they keep Strong. Clemson has SC and NC to recruit in and has history in Florida. I think your right about Louisville though they can be consistent top 25ish. UVA-UNC will always plays the UVA poster in this thread or another said that rivalry is the 3rd longest in the country and Mizzou-KU Texas-Texas A&M no more will become the oldest. I think the only swap that can be suggested would be Georgia Tech for Louisville, but honestly I think the divisions will remain the same and Louisville will play Clemson or Florida State at home each year on an automatic appealing Thursday night game.

 

[All4SU]

But...but...but...
We have to have 7 home games...
We have to play our in-state rival...
We have to play Georgia Tech and Clemson...
We don't want to have to travel north...