ACC to adopt 9-game conference schedule...

#1
TrueOrange

TrueOrange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
50,334
Likes
5,931
#1
in football, with additions of Syracuse and Pitt, per ACC presser

Pitt, Syracuse assigned ACC divisions; nine-game slate in the offing | CollegeFootballTalk

Those looking for the ACC to significantly revamp its divisional setup ahead of the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the conference will be sorely disappointed.

The ACC announced Friday that Pittsburgh will be added to its Coastal Division while Syracuse will play in the Atlantic Division… and that’s it. No other members will be moving to different divisions as some had projected.

“We have been engaged in discussions on the various options for integrating Pitt and Syracuse since early fall,” said ACC commissioner John Swofford in a statement. “It’s a tremendous tribute to the leadership at our schools that we will be able to seamlessly add Pitt and Syracuse at the appropriate time when they become full playing members.

Thus, the divisions will look as follows:

ATLANTIC
Boston College
Clemson
Florida State
Maryland
North Carolina State
Syracuse
Wake Forest

COASTAL
Duke
Georgia Tech
Miami
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Additionally, the ACC confirmed in its press release that the conference will go to a nine-game schedule for football upon the arrival of the two current Big East members, which is expected to happen no later than the 2014 season.

The release states that “[t]he format will consist of each team playing all six in its division each year, plus its primary crossover partner each year and two rotating opponents from the opposite division. This six-year cycle allows each team to play each divisional opponent and its primary crossover partner six times (three home and three away) while also playing each rotating crossover opponent two times (one home and one away).”

Moving to a nine-game league schedule could have one very big downside as well — the odds of the continuation of the Backyard Brawl between Pitt and West Virginia, not good to begin with, have decreased immensely.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
will join the Pac12 and Big12 as having such

the Big 10 is also expected (/predicted) to adopt such in the next 5 or so years
 
#6
#6
Ericvol2096 said:
Are these teams going to be in the ACC next year or are they having to wait?
Click to expand...

milohimself said:
They'll be in next season IIRC.
Click to expand...

Wvu was the only one demanding an immediate out; these two were fine with the two year period and are currently scheduled to join in 2014



Now, that may all be subject to change if wvu is granted immediate leave by the courts
 
#7
#7
This doesn't seem like a good idea unless every other conference does it. It guarantees more losses to teams in your conference. I'd rather have the possibility of going 12-0 or 14-0 out of conference as opposed to automatically adding 6-7 losses. It also lessens the chance of putting a team in the championship as long as conferences continue playing more ooc games.
 
#8
#8
The_Orange_Pearl said:
This doesn't seem like a good idea unless every other conference does it. It guarantees more losses to teams in your conference. I'd rather have the possibility of going 12-0 or 14-0 out of conference as opposed to automatically adding 6-7 losses. It also lessens the chance of putting a team in the championship as long as conferences continue playing more ooc games.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every other conference does (as mentioned above)


The PAC 12 has a 9 game schedule, the big 12 does (granted theirs is round robin), and the ACC now will (with more teams than the others)


(and the big 10 is expected to in the next 5 years)
 
#9
#9
I think it will be the norm. Although the Pac-10 started it initially to have a round robin, and just kept it when they added Colorado and Utah.
 
#12
#12
Wonder why they aren't going with a North/South split? The divisions are archaic.
 
#13
#13
The_Orange_Pearl said:
This doesn't seem like a good idea unless every other conference does it. It guarantees more losses to teams in your conference. I'd rather have the possibility of going 12-0 or 14-0 out of conference as opposed to automatically adding 6-7 losses. It also lessens the chance of putting a team in the championship as long as conferences continue playing more ooc games.
Click to expand...

They said the same thing in 1992 when the SEC went from 7 to 8 conference games and added the SECCG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
milohimself said:
I think it will be the norm. Although the Pac-10 started it initially to have a round robin, and just kept it when they added Colorado and Utah.
Click to expand...

I think it should, too.*

The problem, though...is going to be our conference.*

At the current moment, the word has been that the coaches and Athletic Directors are pretty adamant about not expanding past 8 games (the coaches don't want to get rid of an easy - cupcake - game; the ADs don't want to give up the home game payday... though new tv contracts/network would likely bring in more for each of these schools than single games against the Montanas of the sport)

(...I'm also not completely certain, but I think university presidents and commissioner have say and/or*votes in such a decision, but it might *be something everyone has to be on board with first. If the latter, Slive likely would need some serious work put in to convince some people)

If a 9 game schedule is rejected to maintain an 8 game one though, something else in turn will have to be sacrificed. Either the cross-divisional rotation will have to be severely diminished, or - to the favor of probably anyone not named Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn - the permanent cross-divisional rivals will have to be done away with.

And to add to all this, if it's decided that the new standard for bowl eligibility is now 7 wins, then just forget it completely. None of the conference schools are going to agree to throw away that free win and risk lowering their possibilities of bowl games and bowl game money with that raised requirements. * (maybe worth mentioning too that our conference has been near the top in sending 6-6 teams to bowl games.) There's no way they'd (willingly) risk compromising that.

The schools in the conference are going to have to make a decision eventually *about matters more to them: the long rivalries they've worked to preserve, their shorter system of home and home rotation, and its own overall standing or a cheap, easy home game win...with a possible loss of integrity (as othet teams talk about how their record would be good, too, if they got to play an extra Furman, Montana, or western Kentucky *each season, and how they all use the schedule the SEC is afraid to use...)
 
#16
#16
TrueOrange said:
I think it should, too.*

The problem, though...is going to be our conference.*

At the current moment, the word has been that the coaches and Athletic Directors are pretty adamant about not expanding past 8 games (the coaches don't want to get rid of an easy - cupcake - game; the ADs don't want to give up the home game payday... though new tv contracts/network would likely bring in more for each of these schools than single games against the Montanas of the sport)

(...I'm also not completely certain, but I think university presidents and commissioner have say and/or*votes in such a decision, but it might *be something everyone has to be on board with first. If the latter, Slive likely would need some serious work put in to convince some people)

If a 9 game schedule is rejected to maintain an 8 game one though, something else in turn will have to be sacrificed. Either the cross-divisional rotation will have to be severely diminished, or - to the favor of probably anyone not named Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn - the permanent cross-divisional rivals will have to be done away with.

And to add to all this, if it's decided that the new standard for bowl eligibility is now 7 wins, then just forget it completely. None of the conference schools are going to agree to throw away that free win and risk lowering their possibilities of bowl games and bowl game money with that raised requirements. * (maybe worth mentioning too that our conference has been near the top in sending 6-6 teams to bowl games.) There's no way they'd (willingly) risk compromising that.

The schools in the conference are going to have to make a decision eventually *about matters more to them: the long rivalries they've worked to preserve, their shorter system of home and home rotation, and its own overall standing or a cheap, easy home game win...with a possible loss of integrity (as othet teams talk about how their record would be good, too, if they got to play an extra Furman, Montana, or western Kentucky *each season, and how they all use the schedule the SEC is afraid to use...)
Click to expand...

Intelligent post
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top