04/27/2014 at 7:47 PM #51462StateFansKeymaster
With the ACC league meetings coming up May 12-15, here are some interesting tidbits on scheduling that could affect the ACC’s decisions on future sche
[See the full post at: ACC/SEC Football Scheduling Changes]04/27/2014 at 8:37 PM #51463Alpha WolfKeymaster
Personally, I think that the nine game deal would be easily remedied: you get 4/5 home and away one year and 5/4 the next. The brain trust over in Greensboro should be able to figure that out without any help.
I am cynical of the SEC deal because I think that television (ESPN) would ultimately end up controlling the matchups and locations of the games. That would more than likely not be good for NC State or its fans.04/27/2014 at 9:54 PM #5146513OTParticipant
Thanks to the IDIOTS who brought Notre Dame on board, the ACC will never go to a 9-game conference schedule, especially if all the ACC teams end up playing an SEC team each season. That’ll be ten games already filled for the ACC teams who play ND that season, and you know the ACC teams will want at least two cupcake opponents if not 3. The ACC basketball coaches were opposed to going to an 18-game schedule, so it’s likely that a majority of the ACC football coaches will feel the same way about a 9-game schedule.
The ACC “brain crust” may be able to figure out a schedule, but like Alpha said, ESPN will control the matchups, and to hell with who the fans want to see on their team’s schedule. It will indeed be bad news for the Wolfpack and Demon Deacons, who probably will continue to be stuck in the same division with Clemson, FSU and now Louisville.
Again, what the league needs to do is re-align the conference into 2 historically and geographically sensible divisions, which would place the Big Four back on annual football schedules, probably with Clemson, FSU and GT or UVA. Syracuse and the other Big East castoffs KNEW what they were getting into when they joined the ACC. If they don’t like the Big Four teams getting a “travel break” by playing each other the way they’ve done for the past hundred years, tough crap. The Orange and their arrogant fans can go to hell for all I care, and hopefully take Notre Dame, BC, Pitt and Miami with them. I hate this new ACC, and if the Pack doesn’t soon get its long-term rivals (Duke, GT, UVA plus an opportunity to play VT more often) back on some kind of regular schedule, I’m done with buying season football tickets like I have for the past 20 seasons.
It simply makes no sense, financially or from a rivalry standpoint, to destroy the annual State-Duke and UNC-WF football matchups.
The ACC has already destroyed the Big East. Now, it’s about to destroy itself, if that hasn’t happened already. Whatever comes out of this meeting next week, you can bet that it’ll please only the tv networks and those responsible for screwing this league up in the first place.04/27/2014 at 10:26 PM #51466Alpha WolfKeymaster
From a radical-change standpoint, as a means of becoming more viable for College Football Playoff consideration, the SEC has adopted an unprecedented strength-of-schedule component, mandating that, starting in 2016, all 14 teams must schedule at least one power-conference program per season.04/27/2014 at 10:39 PM #51467JediwolfParticipant
Before it’s over the five power conferences will only play each other, Notre Dame will be a full league member and they will all be in a new football subdivision in the NCAA. There will be an 8 team playoff for the national championship and the five power conferences will suck all of the TV money out of college football.04/28/2014 at 10:03 AM #51469VaWolf82Keymaster
As long as ND has the NBC contract, they will never join a conference in FB. The major conferences will always schedule smaller schools so that they can get the money generated by home games. You don’t have to like it…but to think otherwise is delusional.04/28/2014 at 12:28 PM #51471Pack85EEParticipant
Another Possibility which no one mentions is just making the divisions fluid. Why do they need to stay consistent year in and out? You can keep the 8 team schedule. Make the rules that you will play every other team in conference at least every third year. Load the divisions based on conference records. Even if you have to makes schedules two years out, it should still keep things interesting. The fans will have the “fun” of trying to figure out which division they are in and who else is in it but hell, we do that anyway.
Each team can keep two teams they want to play every year and preferences for other old rivalries. That way, when Wake or UNX end up in our division, we could pick up a team outside our division that we want to play more (Duke, other old ACC teams). It might seem crazy but I think it would be better than what we have. Maybe there would be a weighting factor so that if your preferences are bottom dwellers, one or two would kick out and you get an opponent that evens up your strength of schedule.
It would add to off season excitement just waiting to find out your division make up for the coming seasons.
The ACC brain trust would have a challenging time building the schedules but it’s just a basic Operations Research problem.04/28/2014 at 12:51 PM #51472TexpackParticipant
This plan will be the death of the SEC as the unquestioned, ten times better than every other conference, every week is a killer college football conference. Once they play somebody other than UAB in the non-conference people will begin to see how they really stack up against other conferences (see Duke vs. Texas A&M).04/28/2014 at 2:26 PM #51473Virginia WolfParticipant
I agree Texpack! The ACC could adopt the “Strength of Schedule” model. Aparently, that is the only way the Wolfpack will ever get a decent non-conference opponent. For some reason our folks don’t want a decent team coming to Carter Finley. If we adopted the model, Notre Dame could be considered that opponent the years a team plays them. Just a thought!04/28/2014 at 7:49 PM #51477JediwolfParticipant
If you have to be in one of the five power conferences to play for the national championship ND will join.04/28/2014 at 9:34 PM #51480GAWolfKeymaster
I think Rodon’s numbers are indeed down. He’s certainly still pitched well enough to have a substantially better record than he has. I’ve been watching his velocity during the games on the score board and he looks like he’s sitting in the low 90’s. That’s great speed when he has such a crippling slider. However, a scout made a public statement that his numbers are indeed down. I cannot recall exactly where I saw it. Last year several times Carlos’ velocity would actually peak around the 7th or 8th inning. I don’t recall seeing that this year, but admittedly I’ve been substantially more disinterested given how poorly the rest of the team has played.04/28/2014 at 11:05 PM #51484packalum44Participant
No one except their families should give a damm what the coaches want. Playing small schools only behooves the coaches as it pads their W/L record which is the single most important factor in which they are judged by – good/bad/ugly/young/old/retired – are all are judged by wins. Think Herb would have ever been hired by ASU if it were not for all the cupcakes he ate??? He’s an extreme example of how to game the system. Kudos to the smarty pants from Carnegie Mellon.
Conference chairs should force their schools to play as many BCS games as possible. Create an oligopoly.
1- Creating an oligopoly would help funnel recruits to BCS. There are hundreds of “borderline” recruits every year that go to the EZU’s of the world so they can get guaranteed playing time. Every year you have Chris Johnson types that would more likely accept the “risk” of riding than pine if we can reverse parity.
2- Most fans would much prefer to watch a loss against a BCS school rather than a win against Richmond Spiders. Plus you wouldn’t have to PAY small schools to play you. More game-day revenue. Cha-ching.
3- More likely to funnel coaches into BCS (e.g., Chris Peterson) too since the money and prestige would decline from non-BCS.
4- Crap programs like ours would actually have a chance to play UGAs of the world if they were forced to play more BCS games. Good programs view us as we view ECU. No glory when you beat them, but lots of pain when you lose. Our best chance to play home/aways with good programs.
Conclusion: Cutting out the non-BCS schools completely would be optimal but realistic constraints require they start slow and work toward that goal.
Conclusion 2: These guys are morons with little strategic vision and practically no job accountability or incentives that align with optimizing college football.04/29/2014 at 9:32 AM #51493VaWolf82Keymaster
Plus you wouldn’t have to PAY small schools to play you. More game-day revenue. Cha-ching.
I don’t think so. If you drop the small schools who play for pay, then you end up scheduling more home/home series with NO REVENUE on away games. A home/home against Ohio State will net less money than two home games against Ohio University.
There are plenty of reasons to want a better OOC scheduling. Increased revenue isn’t one of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.