You may remember my little rant https://csnbbs.com/thread-983004.html , I never liked it when someone pointed out perceived problems, but offers no solution. I’ve touched on some minor changes to NDs scheduling that should be simple enough to implement if nothing else changes, but I’d like to blow things up a little more and reassemble them in a way that is fair and makes sense:

1 Equal means equal - If you accept membership of some school in Texas or California, then you need to prepare to subsidize their travel expenses. When divisions were going on, the Atlantic division was more spread out than the Coastal costing schools in the far south and far north to spend more on travel. This is a form of unequal revenue sharing in itself when some teams have to spend more money than others simply getting to the stadium. Again, the solution is to subsidize these teams.

2 Maximize fan interest - just because you exist in the same conference does not mean fans want to regularly see you on the schedule. We vote with our wallets who we like and don’t like..so more of the like and less of the dislike. This means figuring out who recipricates that like and schedule each other more. If it’s a one way street then maybe it can be worked out through some horse trading with basketball to football or football to basketball.

3 Take the success initiative a bit further - one of the biggest complaints I have is teams overscheduling, so if you fail to make it to the post season then you get no post season shares for that sport. That might mean you have to fire some underperforming coaches, opening up that NIL wallet for better players or quit scheduling P5 teams when you already play UGA annually.

4 ACCCG reformation - the regular season is usually more than enough to decide a champion, the CG is more or less a money grab and should be treated as such. I’d rather the best team in the regular season sit it out and allow 2 teams that need to impress the playoff committee battle it out. In the 12 team playoff FSU would firmly be in so they’d sit this game out and UL and NCSU could play for a playoff spot. This way the ACC is guaranteed to have 2 make it in the playoff every year. As a matter of policy if a team finishes with 11 or more wins you “opt out” of the game. The ACC could also use the cfb Playoff final rankings to determine a conference champ as well if the regular season does not suffice.

(12-11-2023 09:30 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  You may remember my little rant https://csnbbs.com/thread-983004.html , I never liked it when someone pointed out perceived problems, but offers no solution. I’ve touched on some minor changes to NDs scheduling that should be simple enough to implement if nothing else changes, but I’d like to blow things up a little more and reassemble them in a way that is fair and makes sense:

1 Equal means equal - If you accept membership of some school in Texas or California, then you need to prepare to subsidize their travel expenses. When divisions were going on, the Atlantic division was more spread out than the Coastal costing schools in the far south and far north to spend more on travel. This is a form of unequal revenue sharing in itself when some teams have to spend more money than others simply getting to the stadium. Again, the solution is to subsidize these teams.

2 Maximize fan interest - just because you exist in the same conference does not mean fans want to regularly see you on the schedule. We vote with our wallets who we like and don’t like..so more of the like and less of the dislike. This means figuring out who recipricates that like and schedule each other more. If it’s a one way street then maybe it can be worked out through some horse trading with basketball to football or football to basketball.

3 Take the success initiative a bit further - one of the biggest complaints I have is teams overscheduling, so if you fail to make it to the post season then you get no post season shares for that sport. That might mean you have to fire some underperforming coaches, opening up that NIL wallet for better players or quit scheduling P5 teams when you already play UGA annually.

4 ACCCG reformation - the regular season is usually more than enough to decide a champion, the CG is more or less a money grab and should be treated as such. I’d rather the best team in the regular season sit it out and allow 2 teams that need to impress the playoff committee battle it out. In the 12 team playoff FSU would firmly be in so they’d sit this game out and UL and NCSU could play for a playoff spot. This way the ACC is guaranteed to have 2 make it in the playoff every year. As a matter of policy if a team finishes with 11 or more wins you “opt out” of the game. The ACC could also use the cfb Playoff final rankings to determine a conference champ as well if the regular season does not suffice.

I like 1, 2 and 3

I’ll repackage point #4 in case the significance of my proposal got lost. The ACC is a perennial 1 bid league in the expanded playoffs if nothing changes, we see how little the media and CFB Playoff committee thinks of us. The ACCCG is currently a knockout (of the playoffs) game rather than a knock in. A 12-0, 11-1 team is guaranteed a spot, there is no need for them to beat up on a 9 or 10 win team in a usually non competitive game. Such games solidify the Playoffs committees view as the ACC being a 1 bid league especially when you have ESPN whispering in their ear. If the ACC has the autonomy to pull such a stunt, I’d propose the #2 vs #3 team play, #1 gets what is the equivalent of a bye. The real ACC champ is not declared until the playoffs are over. The ACC championship game could be repackaged as the “ACC race for the national championship” game. It’s a high stakes game with a playoff bid on the line.

(12-12-2023 06:28 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’ll repackage point #4 in case the significance of my proposal got lost. The ACC is a perennial 1 bid league in the expanded playoffs if nothing changes, we see how little the media and CFB Playoff committee thinks of us. The ACCCG is currently a knockout (of the playoffs) game rather than a knock in. A 12-0, 11-1 team is guaranteed a spot, there is no need for them to beat up on a 9 or 10 win team in a usually non competitive game. Such games solidify the Playoffs committees view as the ACC being a 1 bid league especially when you have ESPN whispering in their ear. If the ACC has the autonomy to pull such a stunt, I’d propose the #2 vs #3 team play, #1 gets what is the equivalent of a bye. The real ACC champ is not declared until the playoffs are over. The ACC championship game could be repackaged as the “ACC race for the national championship” game. It’s a high stakes game with a playoff bid on the line.

I'm not sure we can do that even if we wanted to. The ACC tried to get unregulated championship games through a decade ago and was turned down by Delaney and the B1G. Now we've eliminated divisions but I still don't think we have the leeway to not put the best 2 teams in.

But these 4 ideas are the best ones you've come up with. I approve.

FSU - they have all the mouth of Texas yet none of the cash.

I used to like FSU but now hearing their name sickens me as much as hearing the name Duke or UNC. What a world, what a world.

(12-12-2023 06:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-12-2023 06:28 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’ll repackage point #4 in case the significance of my proposal got lost. The ACC is a perennial 1 bid league in the expanded playoffs if nothing changes, we see how little the media and CFB Playoff committee thinks of us. The ACCCG is currently a knockout (of the playoffs) game rather than a knock in. A 12-0, 11-1 team is guaranteed a spot, there is no need for them to beat up on a 9 or 10 win team in a usually non competitive game. Such games solidify the Playoffs committees view as the ACC being a 1 bid league especially when you have ESPN whispering in their ear. If the ACC has the autonomy to pull such a stunt, I’d propose the #2 vs #3 team play, #1 gets what is the equivalent of a bye. The real ACC champ is not declared until the playoffs are over. The ACC championship game could be repackaged as the “ACC race for the national championship” game. It’s a high stakes game with a playoff bid on the line.

I'm not sure we can do that even if we wanted to. The ACC tried to get unregulated championship games through a decade ago and was turned down by Delaney and the B1G. Now we've eliminated divisions but I still don't think we have the leeway to not put the best 2 teams in.

But these 4 ideas are the best ones you've come up with. I approve.

I don't know if there is anything in the rules that prevent this idea, I'm leaning toward conferences have this leeway. Just a few weeks ago the MWC (correct me if I am wrong) had a computer pick their conference championship game participants because the tie break rules were not specific enough. In 2012, both UNC and Miami declined the Coastal division spot in the ACCCG because of self imposed penalties. Teams and players routinely opt out of bowls, the ACCCG is a post season game so I don't think there is a difference.

I posted this model before, but with the 4 points in mind and some adjustments I think this model looks better than the current or future scheduling models:

Scheduling Cubes - "divisions" invoke the thought of being in a conference and sort of regression into an out of date model. Cubes are 6 sided, this scheduling model has 6 teams.

FSU, ND, GT, Stan, Cal, SMU

UNC, NCSU, Wake, Duke, UVA, Clem

VT, Pitt, SU, BC, UL, UM


The idea is that everybody plays within their cube, other games within the ACC are not mandatory, but highly encouraged. There is a lot of scheduling flexibility here and games outside the cube can negotiate place and price. The winner of the cube qualifies for a spot in the ACC Race for the national championship game and has the option to opt out.

The reasons why I chose this grouping of teams is because it maximizes fan interest, holds tradition, looks balanced and in most cases eases travel. The cube with FSU is the trickiest one, but I felt that FSU would least complain about annual trips to California when GT and ND is on the annual schedule, plus it's not like FSU vs Miami will go away just because they are in a different cube, ditto with Clemson (but a break now and then may not be bad). My biggest concern is with ND, we know they are firm on the 5 game rule so this would mean no games vs the other ACC schools outside of the cube. I would be fine with Tulane taking ND's place, but my preference would be to wait until a few years before the ACC expands again.

Some challenges that should not be hard to overcome, but needs to be considered is scheduling. Between the individual schools, the ACC and ESPN it will be a bigger challenge and means more responsibility on the schools to get their 12 team schedule filled in a timely manner. I think most teams will do 8 games within the conference pretty regularly and have these games scheduled years in advance.

This model is obviously for football, but a different model can be used for different sports.

(12-12-2023 07:52 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(12-12-2023 06:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-12-2023 06:28 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’ll repackage point #4 in case the significance of my proposal got lost. The ACC is a perennial 1 bid league in the expanded playoffs if nothing changes, we see how little the media and CFB Playoff committee thinks of us. The ACCCG is currently a knockout (of the playoffs) game rather than a knock in. A 12-0, 11-1 team is guaranteed a spot, there is no need for them to beat up on a 9 or 10 win team in a usually non competitive game. Such games solidify the Playoffs committees view as the ACC being a 1 bid league especially when you have ESPN whispering in their ear. If the ACC has the autonomy to pull such a stunt, I’d propose the #2 vs #3 team play, #1 gets what is the equivalent of a bye. The real ACC champ is not declared until the playoffs are over. The ACC championship game could be repackaged as the “ACC race for the national championship” game. It’s a high stakes game with a playoff bid on the line.

I'm not sure we can do that even if we wanted to. The ACC tried to get unregulated championship games through a decade ago and was turned down by Delaney and the B1G. Now we've eliminated divisions but I still don't think we have the leeway to not put the best 2 teams in.

But these 4 ideas are the best ones you've come up with. I approve.

I don't know if there is anything in the rules that prevent this idea, I'm leaning toward conferences have this leeway. Just a few weeks ago the MWC (correct me if I am wrong) had a computer pick their conference championship game participants because the tie break rules were not specific enough. In 2012, both UNC and Miami declined the Coastal division spot in the ACCCG because of self imposed penalties. Teams and players routinely opt out of bowls, the ACCCG is a post season game so I don't think there is a difference.

This would work great but I think we'd have to see a few iterations of the ACCCG loser getting knocked out of the playoffs before implementation. If you have an undefeated and a 1 loss, take #3 and #4.

If it's completely unregulated just say we'll put the 2 teams in that give us the best chance of putting the most teams in the playoffs and leave it at that. Make the regular season winner the conference champ. We'd probably have a bunch of shared conference titles but that's ok.

This conf screwed up when it continued to invite schools that don't have a large football following (BC, Cuse) especially when you consider it already had WF and Dook.

Think about it....it took a governor to get VT and Clemson and FSU raising hell over UConn to get Lville.

Imagine what football interest would look like if we didn't even have VT and Lville.

Just end this mess.

(12-13-2023 09:53 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  This conf screwed up when it continued to invite schools that don't have a large football following (BC, Cuse) especially when you consider it already had WF and Dook.

Think about it....it took a governor to get VT and Clemson and FSU raising hell over UConn to get Lville.

Imagine what football interest would look like if we didn't even have VT and Lville.

Just end this mess.

It’s fine, expansion was driven by tv dollars and they did their part. The scheduling Cube gets the original ACC and BE back together and allows everybody to be more selective on who they play. Collectively this means less travel for Cal and Stan as they can just play the 5 teams in their Cube and the rest can be games against the West Coast.

Up until around 2000 or so, basketball and football carried equal weight in terms of the TV contract. From that point forward it tilted heavily towards football.

In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT, WVU, Lville and Pitt and called it a wrap.

Maryland would have stayed because ACC football (and basketball) would have gotten the dollars needed to stay competitive.

(12-13-2023 10:45 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Up until around 2000 or so, basketball and football carried equal weight in terms of the TV contract. From that point forward it tilted heavily towards football.

In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT, WVU, Lville and Pitt and called it a wrap.

Maryland would have stayed because ACC football (and basketball) would have gotten the dollars needed to stay competitive.

I thought that was around the early 90s before football started to get an insane amount of attention. What killed fanatic basketball watching for me was the bad officiating, it did not matter if it was my team or another team that was getting screwed, it was blatant and obvious. I used to love watching Tuesday night basketball double headers on ESPN.

More random thoughts on “the big picture”:

There is a couple schools of thought on whether it’s good to help ND accumulate wins by feeding them beatable opponents or giving them challenging games with good opponents that may knock them out of the playoffs. This past season it was a little bit of both with losses to UL and Clemson, a narrow escape to Duke and a couple more wins vs the bottom of the conference.

If nothing changes in the ACC’s scheduling philosophy and we continue down this current path, then I’d hope ND gets the games against the best of the ACC which could help a team prove they are playoff worthy should they win, it would also give the weaker teams a better chance at bowl eligibility.

On the other hand, if the ACC fed ND the weaker teams it wouid increase their chances of going to the playoffs thus taking a spot that would likely be taken by an SEC or BigTen team. It would also harm the ACC’s reputation in the process if ND continues to beat up on the weaker teams.

Perhaps the larger goal should be is to secure a good relation with ND so they would continue their association with the ACC past the next 13 years.

(12-13-2023 04:11 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  More random thoughts on “the big picture”:

There is a couple schools of thought on whether it’s good to help ND accumulate wins by feeding them beatable opponents or giving them challenging games with good opponents that may knock them out of the playoffs. This past season it was a little bit of both with losses to UL and Clemson, a narrow escape to Duke and a couple more wins vs the bottom of the conference.

If nothing changes in the ACC’s scheduling philosophy and we continue down this current path, then I’d hope ND gets the games against the best of the ACC which could help a team prove they are playoff worthy should they win, it would also give the weaker teams a better chance at bowl eligibility.

On the other hand, if the ACC fed ND the weaker teams it wouid increase their chances of going to the playoffs thus taking a spot that would likely be taken by an SEC or BigTen team. It would also harm the ACC’s reputation in the process if ND continues to beat up on the weaker teams.

Perhaps the larger goal should be is to secure a good relation with ND so they would continue their association with the ACC past the next 13 years.

ND is 34-2 versus the ACC in regular season games since 2017.

It didn't just beat up on "the weaker teams", it beat just about everyone in the ACC.

Who knows what the contract between the ACC and ND says about teams selected?

I do know the general rule is that ND selects the open dates and the ACC selects the opponent.

But whether there is any provision regarding the rotation of teams itself or one that prohibits only a select few, I don't know.