I see ND settling into an 8 game ACC schedule and playing USC, Navy, a G5, and an elite Big 10/SEC/Big 12 school annually.

That would give them 6-7 home games per year.

(08-18-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Another home game pays a lot more than going to a run of the mill bowl.

But going to a bowl, even a rink-dink one, is more fun, and adds about 3 weeks to an already short season.

I like the bowls.

Quo, these days they are extra risks for the Seniors who think they have a chance to be drafted and the schools aren't turning out for them like they once did. They were inventions of the chambers of commerce to begin with and now the AD's are more interested in whether or not they pay. Coaches might still see them as a reward or vacation, but mostly they see them as a way to earn a bonus, even though most contracts are now specifying playoffs as bonus material, not the Poulan Weed Easter Bowl.

Yeah I know .... still, I like the Poulan Weed Eater Bowls and all the rest.

I also like OOC games. IMO, eight or nine conference games is fine. I want to see 3-4 OOC games, even if a couple are against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Of course, I know that what "I want" counts for nothing, but still.

As a TN fan, I don't mind a game every so often versus say ETSU. I like the optics of the in-state FBS vs. FCS games. But I do like the idea of that being a spring game or pre-season game.

On the other hand, TN is disadvantaged by schedule already given that Alabama is our cross-over (not complaining, and wouldn't change it, we just have to be better!).

On the other, other hand, if we went to 12 P5 games, we could play VT at Bristol (or Home and Home) as our "rivalry week game." (Vandy could have Wake Forest) and still have one more for a cross-sectional game (OK seems to be our popular choice recently)

(08-18-2020 10:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Another home game pays a lot more than going to a run of the mill bowl.

But going to a bowl, even a rink-dink one, is more fun, and adds about 3 weeks to an already short season.

I like the bowls.

Quo, these days they are extra risks for the Seniors who think they have a chance to be drafted and the schools aren't turning out for them like they once did. They were inventions of the chambers of commerce to begin with and now the AD's are more interested in whether or not they pay. Coaches might still see them as a reward or vacation, but mostly they see them as a way to earn a bonus, even though most contracts are now specifying playoffs as bonus material, not the Poulan Weed Easter Bowl.

I do appreciate your sentiment as a fan, but nobody has been making decisions based on fans want for the last 20 years.

I think coaches also like it for the extra two weeks of practice time it gives them - much of which can be spent developing less experienced players who didn't see much playing time during the regular season. It's a nice jump on Spring practice.

To reiterate my fan point, if your team doesn't go to a bowl, you're basically talking a three-month season, from about September 1st to about December 1st.

And for many even shorter than that, as their season may start around September 3rd and end around November 25th. Then it's more than NINE long months off with zero football. Like for USF this past year, even before Covid, we were supposed to have a 281 day gap between our last game of 2019 (no bowl) and first game of 2020 ... 281 days! In contrast, our 2019 season was 91 days long. That's just too long of a gap, too much time.

Yes, I know the December bowl season is mostly empty space, you may play your last regular game around November 25th and your bowl game is on December 23rd, so 4 weeks of empty air until the last game, but psychologically it doesn't feel that way, as long as you have that one more game to play, you feel that "the season" is still going on.

IMO, that makes a big difference to the fan.

(08-18-2020 09:57 AM)otown Wrote:  If it stays purely in conference or almost in conference, P5 teams are going to lose one or two home games every other year. The Ohio States, Michigans, Alabamas etc cannot force the Vandys, Arkansas, Purdues, Illinois, etc to be the away team every year to fill in their home schedule.

Sure they can, and they will. If Vandy is going to want to keep cashing those $50M checks every year they’ll do whatever the networks and Alabama tells them (same for the others you mention).

1. I suspect the length of the season will expand from mid August to mid December once the P-5 leave the NCAA.
2. I think that within a 16 week time frame 12-13 games will be allowed.
3. I think either the playoff expands or conference playoffs expand creating a defacto expansion of the playoffs.
4. I think conferences go to 3 divisions, perhaps pods of 4, or perhaps divisionless.
5. I think the ACC and SEC will keep two "chump" games.


Three divisions allow for three division titles to be won. It allows for a wild card and the controversy that everyone enjoys. If a semifinal playoff game is allowed it will be at the home of the higher seed. If you use last year as an example in the ACC you get Clemson and ND hosting UVa and VT and then Clemson and ND in Charlotte.

(08-18-2020 10:12 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see ND settling into an 8 game ACC schedule and playing USC, Navy, a G5, and an elite Big 10/SEC/Big 12 school annually.

That would give them 6-7 home games per year.

I don't.

My only concern is the amount of hate that will gin up when ND exits the ACC to return to indy status as soon as it can.

The ire that will result when ND does (again) exactly what it says it will do ahead of time will be monumental.

(08-18-2020 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Another home game pays a lot more than going to a run of the mill bowl.

But going to a bowl, even a rink-dink one, is more fun, and adds about 3 weeks to an already short season.

I like the bowls.

Quo, these days they are extra risks for the Seniors who think they have a chance to be drafted and the schools aren't turning out for them like they once did. They were inventions of the chambers of commerce to begin with and now the AD's are more interested in whether or not they pay. Coaches might still see them as a reward or vacation, but mostly they see them as a way to earn a bonus, even though most contracts are now specifying playoffs as bonus material, not the Poulan Weed Easter Bowl.

I do appreciate your sentiment as a fan, but nobody has been making decisions based on fans want for the last 20 years.

I think coaches also like it for the extra two weeks of practice time it gives them - much of which can be spent developing less experienced players who didn't see much playing time during the regular season. It's a nice jump on Spring practice.

To reiterate my fan point, if your team doesn't go to a bowl, you're basically talking a three-month season, from about September 1st to about December 1st.

And for many even shorter than that, as their season may start around September 3rd and end around November 25th. Then it's more than NINE long months off with zero football. Like for USF this past year, even before Covid, we were supposed to have a 281 day gap between our last game of 2019 (no bowl) and first game of 2020 ... 281 days! In contrast, our 2019 season was 91 days long. That's just too long of a gap, too much time.

Yes, I know the December bowl season is mostly empty space, you may play your last regular game around November 25th and your bowl game is on December 23rd, so 4 weeks of empty air until the last game, but psychologically it doesn't feel that way, as long as you have that one more game to play, you feel that "the season" is still going on.

IMO, that makes a big difference to the fan.

That's partially why I think CFB should make Week 0 the new Week 1, and allow every team to start the final Saturday in August.

The season goes by too fast. Add a week at the front, when everyone's starved for anything college football.

Hoping the NCAA attempts a trial run with this in 2021, and allows everyone a 13th game in Week 0 to recoup some lost COVID revenues.

(08-18-2020 10:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:12 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see ND settling into an 8 game ACC schedule and playing USC, Navy, a G5, and an elite Big 10/SEC/Big 12 school annually.

That would give them 6-7 home games per year.

I don't.

My only concern is the amount of hate that will gin up when ND exits the ACC to return to indy status as soon as it can.

The ire that will result when ND does (again) exactly what it says it will do ahead of time will be monumental.

Yep, that is why I am having fun with it for now. This is a unique experience for ND and why not embrace the change in the short term. I know when the pull out (no pun intended) of the ACC people will be pissed. But we will be doing what we said would happen from the very beginning.

There are 16 weeks between August 23 and December 5 - that's time to play 13 games over 16 weeks.

(08-18-2020 10:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:12 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see ND settling into an 8 game ACC schedule and playing USC, Navy, a G5, and an elite Big 10/SEC/Big 12 school annually.

That would give them 6-7 home games per year.

I don't.

My only concern is the amount of hate that will gin up when ND exits the ACC to return to indy status as soon as it can.

The ire that will result when ND does (again) exactly what it says it will do ahead of time will be monumental.

It won't matter Terry, we already don't like you and we'll only like you less when we have to put up with you full time.

(08-17-2020 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2020 07:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  Rese, on a SEC pre-season show suggested that this year's scheduling format (10 conference games) is the way to go in the future, calling on all conferences to adopt this years model of the SEC and ACC. Davis claims that it is better for fans and better for TV.

Yeah, I watched that and thought the same thing. 12 game P scheduling is coming. 10 conference and 2 OOC. That tacitly creates an upper tier separation. Maybe now people will start to believe that this isn't a push by the P5 it is a corporate push to maximize their ad revenue and content value.

I've even understand that FOX and ESPN have made overtures to the Big 10 and PAC to negotiate their new contracts early so they can "assist" with the losses this year. That's shorthand for spread the loss out over the duration of the contract which means less of a bump going forward. It will be fascinating to see how the PAC and Big 10 respond to this. The PAC is so strapped they might go for it. The Big 10 I'm not so sure.

ESPN and FOX ain't pay those dollars for non-conference games. They don't even know the bulk of the non-conference when they bid.

The easiest way to get more money is offer more intra-league games.

The non-conference games essentially exist to increase gate revenue, and get enough wins to keep people happy enough to donate and buy tickets.

10-2 permits a school to stick with a 7 game home slate and reduces the inter-connection used by the computers making the rankings even more of a beauty contest which ain't a bad thing if your league is perceived as strong and has a mediocre or bad year.

I have no problem with 10 conference games - provided the other 2 games are split one home, on away. No need to dictate quality of opponent - that will take care of itself - but what you can't have is some teams with 7 home games and some with only 5. Make everyone play exactly 6 (or do as JR suggested, play 13 games with 6 FBS and one FCS or low G5 home game - still with 6 road games, though).

At some point you might add guidelines for who you can schedule, but I think you have to nail down the how many home vs away first.

(08-18-2020 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN and FOX ain't pay those dollars for non-conference games. They don't even know the bulk of the non-conference when they bid.

The easiest way to get more money is offer more intra-league games.

The non-conference games essentially exist to increase gate revenue, and get enough wins to keep people happy enough to donate and buy tickets.

Remember, as big as the TV money is, at big P5 schools, stuff like gate revenue and other dollars associated with home games is still the biggest source of revenue. E.g., even with no money from TV at all, Alabama would still have had $120 million in athletic revenue last year.

So I do not see schools like Alabama and Ohio State giving up home games to make ESPN or FOX happier.

Plus, not every conference game is a ratings winner. I'm not sure Alabama vs Vandy is a bigger draw than Alabama vs Texas Tech.

(08-17-2020 09:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-17-2020 08:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  This also signals that Notre Dame is now all in with the ACC.
There is a reason that Stanford no longer shows up on the Irish schedule after 2024 and USC after 2026.

Your thesis is that ND is going to drop Southern Cal to play ten ACC games?

Lance...really? Are you in the market for any swamp land in Arizona?

Big fail. Try again.

(P.S. The Navy series didn't "show up" on future Irish schedules either, right up until the minute they just renewed the series through 2032)

Not a fan of either school but it would be a travesty for college football to lose the USC vs Notre Dame game.

9 conference games might be more palatable to the SEC, provided that you can work it out so that Florida, SCAR, UK and UGA all play FSU, Clemson, Louisville and GT at home in the years when they have 5 road conference games. Alternatively, you could require each school to play a conference game at a neutral site like UF-UGA and Ark-A&M each do now to maintain scheduling parity (if you start with Week Zero then you could play the other 5 conference neutral site games in Week 1 in New Orleans, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Nashville etc. before the NFL starts after Labor Day). As long as you get an agreement that the other 10 teams will each play 1 P5 opponent, outside of any kickoff games (i.e. bring back A&M-UT, Mizzou-KU etc.), that could probably work. 10 conference games would probably keep too many lower-tier SEC (and ACC and B1G) teams from making a bowl game. A 9 game ACC slate with ND bringing them to 15 could work in a 13 game season too, just give every school 4 permanent opponents and then play 5 of the other 10 every other year. ND still has 4 slots to schedule Navy, SC, Stanford and a B1G or Big XII school.

(08-18-2020 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN and FOX ain't pay those dollars for non-conference games. They don't even know the bulk of the non-conference when they bid.

The easiest way to get more money is offer more intra-league games.

The non-conference games essentially exist to increase gate revenue, and get enough wins to keep people happy enough to donate and buy tickets.

Remember, as big as the TV money is, at big P5 schools, stuff like gate revenue and other dollars associated with home games is still the biggest source of revenue. E.g., even with no money from TV at all, Alabama would still have had $120 million in athletic revenue last year.

So I do not see schools like Alabama and Ohio State giving up home games to make ESPN or FOX happier.

Plus, not every conference game is a ratings winner. I'm not sure Alabama vs Vandy is a bigger draw than Alabama vs Texas Tech.

There's also a math problem here. The conference controls all of the home games, and almost every P5 team games the system by playing 7-8 home games/year. That gives the SEC and the B1G essentially 14 x 7.5 or 105 games of inventory that they can sell to the various networks and/or keep on their conference network every year. If they go to a 10 game conference-only schedule plus 2 other P5 games (which presumably is a zero sum game such that they're only able to average 6 home games/year), that only yields 84 total games of inventory that they'll have the ability to sell. Even if the various broadcast networks are willing to up their average pay/game to offset that loss of 21 games/year in inventory, will it be enough to compete with the additional loss of revenue from ticket sales, parking and concessions? Not to mention the ill will it will cause in their various towns when they each lose an average of 1.5 home game weekends/year (meaning hotels don't get as many guests, restaurants and bars don't have as many customers, etc.)? Throw in the change in dynamics when teams will have to convince their fans that a 5-7 season is essentially the same as a 7-5 or 8-4 season was 'back in the good ole days?'

There's an old saying - be careful what you wish for...

USFFan

(08-18-2020 12:19 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN and FOX ain't pay those dollars for non-conference games. They don't even know the bulk of the non-conference when they bid.

The easiest way to get more money is offer more intra-league games.

The non-conference games essentially exist to increase gate revenue, and get enough wins to keep people happy enough to donate and buy tickets.

Remember, as big as the TV money is, at big P5 schools, stuff like gate revenue and other dollars associated with home games is still the biggest source of revenue. E.g., even with no money from TV at all, Alabama would still have had $120 million in athletic revenue last year.

So I do not see schools like Alabama and Ohio State giving up home games to make ESPN or FOX happier.

Plus, not every conference game is a ratings winner. I'm not sure Alabama vs Vandy is a bigger draw than Alabama vs Texas Tech.

There's also a math problem here. The conference controls all of the home games, and almost every P5 team games the system by playing 7-8 home games/year. That gives the SEC and the B1G essentially 14 x 7.5 or 105 games of inventory that they can sell to the various networks and/or keep on their conference network every year. If they go to a 10 game conference-only schedule plus 2 other P5 games (which presumably is a zero sum game such that they're only able to average 6 home games/year), that only yields 84 total games of inventory that they'll have the ability to sell. Even if the various broadcast networks are willing to up their average pay/game to offset that loss of 21 games/year in inventory, will it be enough to compete with the additional loss of revenue from ticket sales, parking and concessions? Not to mention the ill will it will cause in their various towns when they each lose an average of 1.5 home game weekends/year (meaning hotels don't get as many guests, restaurants and bars don't have as many customers, etc.)? Throw in the change in dynamics when teams will have to convince their fans that a 5-7 season is essentially the same as a 7-5 or 8-4 season was 'back in the good ole days?'

There's an old saying - be careful what you wish for...

USFFan

I think the point you made is well taken, and a major reason that a 10 game P5 league schedule would require adding a 13th game. Each P5 team would be able to schedule a "homecoming/body bag" type school for the 13th game and would ensure that the net loss of home TV content would only be 6 games (98, down from 104). It would be unfortunate for G5 teams trying to schedule home-and-home or 2 for 1 with P5 schools because I would think that many P5 teams would probably play an FCS school for the 13th game for both state-level political and ease-of-victory reasons (unless, for example, you are South Carolina playing the Citadel or VPI playing JMU).

(08-18-2020 09:29 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 08:44 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  It is certainly possible but I think that’s a hard sell to ADs, coaches, and fans. With 10 conference games/12 P5 games, Suddenly that relatively respectable 8-4 season is now a 6-6 season.

I’m not saying it can’t or won’t happen, but it’s going to be a difficult adjustment

Effectively becomes more like Major League Baseball, where the teams are all so evenly matched that an exceptional team wins just 65% of its games.

8-4 would be very very good. 9-3 would be a world beater.

Yep. Or like the NFL. It would take a pretty significant adjustment period for fans of a major program to not freak out and when they have what previously had been a mediocre season.

Also, I think this setup would really, really hurt new coaches too. No easy wins or momentum builders. In a world where recruiting is the lifeblood of a program it makes it that much harder to get things turned around.

(08-18-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Another home game pays a lot more than going to a run of the mill bowl.

But going to a bowl, even a rink-dink one, is more fun, and adds about 3 weeks to an already short season.

I like the bowls.

Quo, these days they are extra risks for the Seniors who think they have a chance to be drafted and the schools aren't turning out for them like they once did. They were inventions of the chambers of commerce to begin with and now the AD's are more interested in whether or not they pay. Coaches might still see them as a reward or vacation, but mostly they see them as a way to earn a bonus, even though most contracts are now specifying playoffs as bonus material, not the Poulan Weed Easter Bowl.

Yeah I know .... still, I like the Poulan Weed Eater Bowls and all the rest.

I also like OOC games. IMO, eight or nine conference games is fine. I want to see 3-4 OOC games, even if a couple are against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Of course, I know that what "I want" counts for nothing, but still.

I agree. For SC I like to see Clemson, a second P5/road G5 game, a G5 home game, and an FCS game every year. It balances the schedule and provides good variety.

(08-18-2020 10:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 10:12 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see ND settling into an 8 game ACC schedule and playing USC, Navy, a G5, and an elite Big 10/SEC/Big 12 school annually.

That would give them 6-7 home games per year.

I don't.

My only concern is the amount of hate that will gin up when ND exits the ACC to return to indy status as soon as it can.

The ire that will result when ND does (again) exactly what it says it will do ahead of time will be monumental.

It won't matter Terry, we already don't like you and we'll only like you less when we have to put up with you full time.

I mean, come on, you have to know it is mutual, right? (no emoji inserted)

Besides, you don't even want ND football to join the ACC.

You have said it several times.

I don't blame you because you know the minute ND football joins the ACC, that is the beginning of the end of the dominance of North Carolina and Tobacco Road over the ACC.

I believe that you are aware that a full member ND will wield its significant cache, brand and clout to influence the ACC going forward.

The "Yankee/Big East" tier will often side with ND, as well the football centric schools like Clemson and FSU.

It won't be your Grandpappy's ACC going forward if ND joins in full. (insert emoji here)