I griped about this a few years ago, so I figure let’s rehash it.

The proponents of the ACCCG would point to the tv money made from it, and besides more football equal better, that’s the only positive I can think of.

Without the CG, the ACC could instead spread out their games over the course of the season. The schools that play OOC rivals could start their schedule on week 0 and finish up on Thanksgiving weekend. The other schools could start on week 1 and finish their schedules on the conference championship game week and the ACC can bill it as their rivalry weekend.

What this will do is give teams an extra bye week during the season. Gives the ACC rivalry games more of a spotlight during that week without so many other games vying for viewers.

With the exception of a few ACCCG games, they are not usually exciting, well attended or have high tv ratings. I understand that divisionless will guarantee the 2 best teams, but really other than a few seasons the ACC usually had the 2 best teams represent in the division format, so I don’t think that argument works.

A tie for first in the ACC standings is unlikely, if both teams have the same record and no head to head winner, then call the 2 teams co-champs, perhaps both teams go the 12 team playoffs.

(12-06-2022 09:38 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I griped about this a few years ago, so I figure let’s rehash it.

The proponents of the ACCCG would point to the tv money made from it, and besides more football equal better, that’s the only positive I can think of.

Without the CG, the ACC could instead spread out their games over the course of the season. The schools that play OOC rivals could start their schedule on week 0 and finish up on Thanksgiving weekend. The other schools could start on week 1 and finish their schedules on the conference championship game week and the ACC can bill it as their rivalry weekend.

What this will do is give teams an extra bye week during the season. Gives the ACC rivalry games more of a spotlight during that week without so many other games vying for viewers.

With the exception of a few ACCCG games, they are not usually exciting, well attended or have high tv ratings. I understand that divisionless will guarantee the 2 best teams, but really other than a few seasons the ACC usually had the 2 best teams represent in the division format, so I don’t think that argument works.

A tie for first in the ACC standings is unlikely, if both teams have the same record and no head to head winner, then call the 2 teams co-champs, perhaps both teams go the 12 team playoffs.

Usually probably not. However some years you could have team A and team B slate overlap by a as few 2 schools on a 8 school slate.

Team A

Clemson
FSU
Miami
UNC
Duke
VT
GT
BC

Team B

Louisville
BC
Syracuse
Wake
UVa
Pitt
Duke
FSU

The above is so different as to be un-comparable.

The big problem with the title games is that for most of the last 25 years, the two best teams were in the same division.

in 05, 08, 09, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 22 the best two schools were in the same division

I remember 12,13 when FSU won the ACC that Clemson was better then GT and Duke.

UNC had a better conference record than FSU this season, can’t say FSU or anybody else in the Atlantic division was more deserving.

Divisional crap is gone thank the Lord. No more COASTing.

The biggest benefit of eliminating the CCG would be to enhance the chances that the strongest team in the conference would be the conference champion thereby maximizing the likelihood that team will qualify for the CFP.

There are two major counter considerations. First, since in a large conference everybody doesn't play each other, playing a CCG ensures that the two strongest teams do have a chance to play each other for the conference championship. Second, money -- the CCG is a real moneymaker and, with new CFP format, is likely to be a CFP qualifying game every season, thereby further enhancing its value for television.

(12-07-2022 08:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The biggest benefit of eliminating the CCG would be to enhance the chances that the strongest team in the conference would be the conference champion thereby maximizing the likelihood that team will qualify for the CFP.

There are two major counter considerations. First, since in a large conference everybody doesn't play each other, playing a CCG ensures that the two strongest teams do have a chance to play each other for the conference championship. Second, money -- the CCG is a real moneymaker and, with new CFP format, is likely to be a CFP qualifying game every season, thereby further enhancing its value for television.

Yes indeed. All these pros and cons were well known and thoroughly discussed, too, before CCGs were launched. Everywhere, in every conference. And in the end, every conference went ahead with the idea.

CCGs make good money. All of it stays with your membership. Of course conferences hold the games. They reap the harvest and try to minimize the risks.

The CCG is 8% of the total media viewership that the ACC sells to ESPN. One game (the ACCCG) = 8% of the media payout…the other 100 home games average less than 1% each in viewership.

This year’s viewership for the CCG was low because both Clemson and UNC were playing after losses and neither team was competing for the CFP. Most years, the CCG gains national attention.

You can’t generate an 8% increase in media revenue by scheduling rivalry games on a different date.

There is not much competition on the CCG Saturday to begin with, usually around 8-10 games. Who’s to say that NCSU vs UNC, UVA vs VT, Pitt vs Miami could not or would not have a playoff spot on the line?

The ACC has a nice setup for divisionless because the traditional powers: FSU and Clemson play OOC during Rivalry Week. So do GaTech and Louisville.

Miami might start playing BC, UNC should be playing Duke (although they are much improved), VaTech plays UVa, etc. These really shouldn't be rematches.