Swofford Interview with David Glenn today

[Btstimpy]

For those interested in what is going on in the ACC, John Swofford gave about a 20 minute interview with David Glenn today. He talks about the upcoming NCAA meetings, the upcoming ACC meetings, ACC football, ACC basketball, the Basketball Tournament in New York, the Football Championship Game, the Maryland Lawsuit and Counter Suit, and even Louisville's New football coach Bobby Petrino. This is a link to the audio which will last until another David Glenn show replaces it. But it's available to listen to tonight. Swofford kicks off Hour 2.

http://davidglennshow.com/Audio-(1)/Latest-Show.aspx

 

[orange79]

Thanks for the heads up

 

[Toga]

Don't make me work here.

 

[Btstimpy]

Don't make me work here.

Ok. I'm not sure which part you're interested in the most, but if it's the Maryland Lawsuit all John Swofford said was that the current countersuit filed in North Carolina was not much different than what the Maryland court threw out of court in Maryland, and that is all he'll say and we can read between the lines. But he talked for 20 minutes about other stuff.

 

[Toga]

Ok. I'm not sure which part you're interested in the most, but if it's the Maryland Lawsuit all John Swofford said was that the current countersuit filed in North Carolina was not much different than what the Maryland court threw out of court in Maryland, and that is all he'll say and we can read between the lines. But he talked for 20 minutes about other stuff.

How about the ACC Network or division realignment?

 

[Btstimpy]

How about the ACC Network or division realignment?

Nothing on the ACC Network. David Glenn did not ask about it.

On Divisions, he indicated that in the upcoming ACC meeting this month the member schools will review sheduling, how the conference champion will be determined, how what we have in place has worked, and how to improve it. He said that he will be asking for autonomy from the NCAA on how to schedule and how to determine the confernce champion. He wouldn't offer an opinion on where the ACC will end up, but he said that this will be discussed this month at the meetings. Divisions would be part of that.

 

[kcsu]

best commish in college

 

[orange79]

How about the ACC Network or division realignment?

Now say "Thank you."

 

[CuseLegacy]

Thanks Bstimpy. I missed the show yesterday. Interesting listen. For anyone who wants to listen Swofford is in hour 2 and it should be available until noon today.

 

[TexanMark]

I wish Cuse had radio like that...the quick and dirty for those that can't listen. All options are on the table for the ACC for FB scheduling. 8 games, 9 games, divisions, no divisions, don't play everyone in your division...all depending on the will of the NCAA to relax the CHampionship game rules. I read that nothing will happen for 2014. The gist I got is our current divisional structure is probably "Dead Man Walking". Also mentioned obviously that FSU and Clemson winning their bowls was huge for league prestige. Also, said 11 bowl teams is a record number and all eleven teams having a winning record is a best in modern times.

Some more thoughts from me: You could tell Swofford was backpedaling on why the original Big 4 schools are sucking in hoops. He was correct in stating the brand of ACC Hoops is still the strongest and he expects improvement in the future. He wants the season to play out...I'm guessing he hopes an ACC team can become Lazurus like UConn in '11 to challenge with Cuse n the national stage.

As an aside: I heard that the schedule should be released around Feb 1st give or take a few days. So right around NSD. I like the idea of having 3-4 permanent rivals and rotate the others through much more frequently. The feeling I get from the other fan bases is this might be the best course of action going forward with a larger conference.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Thanks for the summary Mark. My wife would never have given me the luxury of listening all the way through! The idea that divisions could be eliminated is intriguing. There was a good discussion about this on the Hive forum on Scout's Georgia Tech site a few days ago where posters were speculating as to how scheduling might work for an 8 or 9 game in-conference slate. I'm kind of partial to going with 3 permanent rivals and an 8-game schedule. This might mean annual games with (for example) Boston College, Pitt and Miami, and then you play the other 10 conference teams twice every four years. The divisional format just puts too many limits on our ability to get around the league on a regular basis. Traveling to Miami or Atlanta once every decade just doesn't do it for me.

 

[WoadBlue]

Thanks for the summary Mark. My wife would never have given me the luxury of listening all the way through! The idea that divisions could be eliminated is intriguing. There was a good discussion about this on the Hive forum on Scout's Georgia Tech site a few days ago where posters were speculating as to how scheduling might work for an 8 or 9 game in-conference slate. I'm kind of partial to going with 3 permanent rivals and an 8-game schedule. This might mean annual games with (for example) Boston College, Pitt and Miami, and then you play the other 10 conference teams twice every four years. The divisional format just puts too many limits on our ability to get around the league on a regular basis. Traveling to Miami or Atlanta once every decade just doesn't do it for me.

Southern Pigskin

 

[sutomcat]

Southern Pigskin

It makes sense to pair SU with BC and Pitt but not Louisville. We have little in common with them, it is really hard to get to Louisville from Syracuse and vice versa, there is little history, etc.

Switch things so that Pitt gets UL instead of UVa and Syracuse gets UVa instead of UL and things makes a lot more sense.

Pittsburgh is 317 miles from Charlottesville and 388 from Louisville.

Charlottesville is 493 miles from Syracuse, while Louisville is 677. That difference is huge for people from NYS thinking about driving down to UVa to attend an away game.

Plus Charlottesville is 117 miles from DC, an area with a ton of SU alums and CNY expatriates.

UVa gets a little longer road trip for their third rival but they have 2 easy roadies with UNC and VT.

SU gets no easy road trips; it would help build rivalries if the ACC gave them 3 relatively easy road trips or at least picked schools that are easy to get affordable flights to. I would consider Georgia Tech, Miami, Tallahassee, UVa and Duke/NC State/UNC in that group.

UL might be the hardest ACC destination for SU fans from upstate NY to get to. Even Clemson is easier.

 

[WoadBlue]

It makes sense to pair SU with BC and Pitt but not Louisville. We have little in common with them, it is really hard to get to Louisville from Syracuse and vice versa, there is little history, etc.

Switch things so that Pitt gets UL instead of UVa and Syracuse gets UVa instead of UL and things makes a lot more sense.

Pittsburgh is 317 miles from Charlottesville and 388 from Louisville.

Charlottesville is 493 miles from Syracuse, while Louisville is 677. That difference is huge for people from NYS thinking about driving down to UVa to attend an away game.

Plus Charlottesville is 117 miles from DC, an area with a ton of SU alums and CNY expatriates.

UVa gets a little longer road trip for their third rival but they have 2 easy roadies with UNC and VT.

SU gets no easy road trips; it would help build rivalries if the ACC gave them 3 relatively easy road trips or at least picked schools that are easy to get affordable flights to. I would consider Georgia Tech, Miami, Tallahassee, UVa and Duke/NC State/UNC in that group.

UL might be the hardest ACC destination for SU fans from upstate NY to get to. Even Clemson is easier.

If that were the only objection to such a plan, we would get it, after the NCAA gets out of the way.

Would Pitt be happy with Louisville rather than UVA? Maybe not, but it shouldn't go ballistic about Louisville. Pittsburgh and Louisville have that Ohio River connection, and Louisville's proximity to Cincinnati can't hurt Pitt's need to recruit OH. Would UVA rather play Cuse or Pitt? I think if it were pitted as Major Lacrosse Powers sharpening their knives on the gridiron, the Hoos would be fine with the Orange.

Knowing these schools and their administrators, who do act like their fans much of the time, I can see several causing trouble.

Georgia Tech will demand both to play FSU more often and damn having to play both FSU and Clemson annually as being a UNC plot to make it hard for GT to win. They will add that the only reason they get Dook, which is the ACC team they have played the most in football, is because now Dook can win, which means the conspiracy is not merely a UNC thing; it is a massive Tobacco Road conspiracy.

MooU will stamp feet and swear that playing Clemson annually while UNC plays UVA annually is proof the whole mess is a Chapel Hill scam to have NCSU lose and give easy Ws to UNC. But if Clemson were swapped for anybody, MooU would whine that UNC has no respect for mistreated ole State and its historically significant Textile Bowl.

The Baptists will squeal that playing BC annually is, because BC is far away and in a region with almost no recruits, a UNC ploy to hurt Wake football and make it permanently 2nd tier.

 

[CU44SE]

Maybe I'm living in the past, but I'd love louisville match ups for us. Renew old rivalry's in Miami and Va tech and then BC for our 3rd game.

 

[Hoo's That]

If it works that everyone gets 3 permanent opponents, our first 2 choices are easy - UNC and VPI. After that, there's no obvious school to pick (at least to me), so the ACC front office will probably look at that situation as giving them some leeway if they need it. Our nightmare would be Klimpson, $U, or Miami as the third because we'd be viewed by Greensboro as their "easy win in an otherwise tough schedule." Some percentage of our fans will scream no matter who is put there other than ND, which just ain't happenin'.

 

[omniorange]

If we can do away with divisional set-ups, the three permanent rivals and playing the other 10 teams twice over a 4 year period makes the most sense.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

If we can do away with divisional set-ups, the three permanent rivals and playing the other 10 teams twice over a 4 year period makes the most sense.

Cheers,
Neil

Bingo. It makes a TON of sense. It's the most logical, most attractive alignment by far.

Then we just line up 1 to 14 and the top 2 team play in the conference championship.

Love it.

 

[sutomcat]

If we can do away with divisional set-ups, the three permanent rivals and playing the other 10 teams twice over a 4 year period makes the most sense.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree, this is a solid plan, a good compromise between retaining important historical rivalries and ensuring conference teams play each regularly enough so it feels like it really is a conference. Playing each school at home at least once every 4 years would do that.

Down the road, if the ACC goes to a 9 game conference schedule and 16 schools, continue playing 3 permanent rivals, and play the remaining 12 schools twice over every 4 year period.

 

[sutomcat]

If we can do away with divisional set-ups, the three permanent rivals and playing the other 10 teams twice over a 4 year period makes the most sense.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree, this is a solid plan, a good compromise between retaining important historical rivalries and ensuring conference teams play each regularly enough so it feels like it really is a conference. Playing each school at home at least once every 4 years would do that.

Down the road, if the ACC goes to a 9 game conference schedule and 16 schools, continue playing 3 permanent rivals, and play the remaining 12 schools twice over every 4 year period.

 

[Chip]

Bingo. It makes a TON of sense. It's the most logical, most attractive alignment by far.

Then we just line up 1 to 14 and the top 2 team play in the conference championship.

Love it.

The NCAA shut down the ACC once when they tried to adjust their iron clad conference championship rules (the 11 team waiver). Hopefully this time they stop and think about it and realize 'why do we even have these specific rules again?'

I would assume BC and Pitt would be two of our rivals. I see Gross only fighting for GT or maybe Miami as the 3rd. Big city livin'. Personally I'd want to see VT. Would help breath some life into our fanbase. Miami could have the same effect but we'd need on field characters at Miami. VT would bring their big 5k section of maroon people that everyone hates.

 

[CuseLegacy]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/ncaa-members-support-big-conference-autonomy/34189

"NCAA Members Support Big-Conference Autonomy
San Diego — The big takeaway from Friday’s governance discussions here at the NCAA convention was the majority support for allowing the wealthiest five conferences to have more autonomy over such decisions as increasing player benefits.
In a room where nearly half of the people represented the wealthiest 11 leagues, 58 percent endorsed letting the five richest conferences operate more independently on certain issues."


I read elsewhere that nothing will be decided until Spring or maybe even Fall.

 

[All4SU]

Anyone care to take a shot at selecting three preferred conference rivals for each ACC team?

 

[Btstimpy]

Anyone care to take a shot at selecting three preferred conference rivals for each ACC team?

Here's one I saw on another board:

SCHOOL--Rival 1, Rival 2, Rival 3
Boston College--Syracuse, Miami, Pitt
Clemson--Georgia Tech, FSU, Wake
Duke--Wake, Georgia Tech, UNC
Florida State--Miami, Clemson,Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech--Clemson, Florida State, Duke
Louisville--Pitt, Virginia Tech, Miami
Miami--FSU, BC, Louisville
North Carolina--UVA, NCSt, Duke
North Carolina St.--VT, UNC, Wake
Pittsburgh--Louisville, Syracuse, BC
Syracuse--BC, Pitt, UVA
Virginia--UNC, VT, Syracuse
Virginia Tech--Louisville, UVA, NC State
Wake Forest--Duke, NCState, Clemson

 

[omniorange]

Bingo. It makes a TON of sense. It's the most logical, most attractive alignment by far.

Then we just line up 1 to 14 and the top 2 team play in the conference championship.

Love it.

Yep, and if it's a tie for second use head-to-head first and if they didn't happen to play that year maybe highest ranked. Although as time goes by, rather than using artificial rankings I kind of like the idea of who hasn't been in the ACCC game or if both have played in it before, who was there the furthest back.

Cheers,
Neil