|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
Legend [19202]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16712
Joined: 9/2/08
|
Heck No to 9 games conference schedule!
Feb 7, 2014, 6:44 AM
|
|
It would only mean more meaningless games, more noon games, more Thursday night games, and horror of horror--Friday night games. It would also mean Clemson's SOS would take a hit which would put us at a disadvantage when it came time to pick teams for the playoffs. HELL NO ACC!
Message was edited by: AThomas®
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1250]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2645
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Heck No to 9 games conference schedule!
Feb 7, 2014, 6:54 AM
|
|
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67853]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115484
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Heck No to 9 games conference schedule!
Feb 7, 2014, 7:56 AM
|
|
yeah it was a stupid idea when they planned it. they realized it and stopped it. why is this even coming up again?
If the ACC network needs an inventory of games let them show some decent OOC games. Or have an SEC ACC football challenge. With the part time add of ND the ACC should be way past this stupid 9 game subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96873]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29215
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Amen! Preach it brutha***
Feb 7, 2014, 8:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [503]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1489
Joined: 10/5/00
|
Re: Heck No to 9 games conference schedule!
Feb 7, 2014, 8:05 AM
|
|
Totally agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7694
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Agreed....however I'm afraid thi$ i$ more about E$ecPN and
Feb 7, 2014, 8:15 AM
|
|
their golden goo$e the $EC. E$ecPN will promi$e $woffy more ba$ketball attention and he'll $tep right in line.
Hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [345]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 413
Joined: 8/28/05
|
Re: Heck No to 9 games conference schedule!
Feb 7, 2014, 8:27 AM
|
|
I don’t want the nine game schedule either but if I am not mistaken it is one of the things that has to happen for an ACC network to materialize as ESPN wants more inventory. I’ll be honest I don’t remember where I read that but I’ll see if I can’t find a link.
If my memory isn’t betraying me then this is likely to happen as the league will not want to pass up on the extra money of the network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2227]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 5574
Joined: 8/16/05
|
I for one would love a friday night game
Feb 7, 2014, 8:33 AM
|
|
plan ahead take the day off, head to clemson for a friday night game and sit back and watch college football all day saturday.
Thursday on the other hand is difficult even for those that live in the upstate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96873]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29215
Joined: 9/14/05
|
I'm not a fan of Thursday night games, but Friday nights
Feb 7, 2014, 8:35 AM
|
|
are for high schools and mid-majors, not for elite college football programs (yes I said ELITE  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Would a nine game schedule be SO bad?
Feb 7, 2014, 8:52 AM
|
|
On the assumption that we are still divisional (a requirement under current NCAA rules), we always play:
NCSU
FSU
BC
Wake
Louisville
Syracuse
GT
And one rotating Coastal team. With nine games, we add one additional Coastal team. That team could be:
Duke (yes, traditionally weak although of course not last season...I think under Cutcliffe)
UVA (yes, traditionally weaker but they are recruiting pretty well)
VT (Traditionally strong)
Miami (Traditionally strong)
Pitt (generally okay)
UNC (generally okay)
Adding one of these is no different than adding a big name OOC game.
2012 - Auburn. Yea! We won...booo, they finished 3-9 with a ranking on par with the bottom of the Coastal.
2013 - Georgia. Yea! We won...booo, they finished 8-5 behind Duke and Miami.
It happens all the time.
Plus, an extra Coastal game means it is more of a "conference". Playing GT and ONE other Coastal opponent every year is pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Re: Would a nine game schedule be SO bad?
Feb 7, 2014, 9:00 AM
|
|
> On the assumption that we are still divisional (a
> requirement under current NCAA rules), we always
> play:
Wookie - Swoffie is trying to dump the NCAA rule of divisional play and put 2 best teams in ACCCG.
I don't think it will be allowed....every other major conference has built their conference membership based on the NCAA rule of 2 divisions, so I would think the SEC, PAC and BIG are a long way from just tossing all that work and money out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1400]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/30/10
|
Actually
Feb 7, 2014, 12:20 PM
|
|
I believe the other Power 5 would support us on this because it helps alleviate some scheduling concerns they have.
The SEC has the same problems we have in that with divisions and a permanent cross-division rival they don't cycle through the other teams as quickly. A change like we are proposing would allow them to do the same thing the ACC wants to do...give each team 3 or 4 permanent games and cycle through the others faster.
In the Pac12 everybody wants to play in the rich SoCal recruiting grounds as much as possible. Doing away with divisions would allow the teams to do that, plus like the ACC since going to divisions the Pac12 has had years where the two best teams are in the same division resulting in a weak championship game.
If the B1G were to go to what we are proposing it would allow the other teams to get the highly desirable Ohio State/Michigan/Nebraska/Penn State games more often.
The BigXII doesn't currently have a dog in the fight, but should remember when they had divisions that often the two best teams were in the same division. Also if they expand in the future it allows teams to get the highly coveted Texas and OU games more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19202]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16712
Joined: 9/2/08
|
Except Clemson got a boost from playing UGA and Auburn in
Feb 7, 2014, 9:02 AM
[ in reply to Would a nine game schedule be SO bad? ] |
|
terms of perception. Beating Number 5 UGA was big. Beating an Auburn team in 2011 coming off the NC was big too. It gave Clemson a boost.
Sorry, but a big-time OOC of game will help Clemson unlike another ACC game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42555
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Exactly and it helps insolate the SEC from OOC comparisons
Feb 7, 2014, 9:05 AM
|
|
ESPiN knows what they're doing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1400]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/30/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
You've got to realize the ACC is not in a bubble
Feb 7, 2014, 8:56 AM
|
|
Sure it would be great to schedule a big OOC game but the other conferences that are establishing networks are in the same boat when it comes to producing inventory for their networks.
Even if the ACC stayed at 8 games, other schools may be unable to schedule Clemson due to commitments within their own conference. Where will the OOC games come from going forward if OOC opponents have expanded their conference schedule?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19202]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16712
Joined: 9/2/08
|
It makes football bland too. A Texas-Ohio State matchup, a
Feb 7, 2014, 9:05 AM
|
|
Oregon-Auburn clash, and a Clemson-UGA class provides conference cross over and variety to a annual group of opponents played year in and year out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [43]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 261
Joined: 12/2/13
|
Re: It makes football bland too. A Texas-Ohio State matchup, a
Feb 7, 2014, 11:11 AM
|
|
Is the Clemson-UGA class a lab?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
A conference game is better than SC State
Feb 7, 2014, 10:14 AM
|
|
If other conferences go to a 9 game schedule (the SEC is talking about it) then the ACC will. There is no reason to be the only conference doing it.
Back when conferences expanded from 7 to 8 games, fans were up in arms about losing big games. It cost us the Clemson/UGA game. But eventually teams will adjust their scheduling philosophy and open up the big OOC games.
Teams with out of conference rivals are the ones that have a problem with losing an extra non-conference games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1400]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/30/10
|
The problem is
Feb 7, 2014, 2:06 PM
|
|
it isn't going to replace the SC State's of the world, it's going to replace the H&H series with schools like UGA.
Our athletic budget is currently built around 7 home games every year. With a 9 game ACC schedule and the yearly H&H with USUC we aren't going to be able to play a H&H with a UGA/Auburn etc. Power 5 level teams aren't going to play here in a one and done. It will be the Georgia States, Troys, MTSUs of the world and the in-state FCS schools that do that. Besides, we are but required to play the in-state FCS school by the General Assembly. As long as the NCAA counts one game a year against them for bowl eligibility we are going to play them.
Also we have a required game every three years with the parasites from South Bend, so every 6 years that means we will only have 6 home games because of having to go up there to play them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
agreed***
Feb 7, 2014, 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16259]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12788
Joined: 11/14/09
|
If a 9-game schedule meant that we could play better
Feb 7, 2014, 11:18 AM
|
|
competition more often and not lose a 7th home game every other year, which the current proposal would force, I'd be okay with it. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish that is a major divisional re-alignment putting the top programs together in one division and the rest in the other. Make the 9th game a home game, ALWAYS, for the top division teams. Better SOS for the schools that need it, better league inventory by a long shot, bigger home schedules for programs with venues to support them. Voila. Problem solved.
The ACC is unique among the other 4 power conferences in that we have four programs (you can name them) that draw under 40,000 fans per game, while the other conferences have three teams combined that share that distinction (Vandy, Wash St., Northwestern). Robbing from the rich to feed the poor is the wrong way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
