It's never a bad thing to add one more game, at least on the collegiate level. More chance for revenue, more chances for teams to play their way into a bowl game. Hope they do.

(09-30-2013 03:57 PM)unghadd Wrote:  It's never a bad thing to add one more game, at least on the collegiate level. More chance for revenue, more chances for teams to play their way into a bowl game. Hope they do.

I'll take that as another voice in favor of the 13 game schedule...

I hate the 9 game schedule because I think it is unfair in the standings at the end of the year to have unbalanced home and away games.

If this eliminates 7 home games then no. Also, it would be pretty herp derp given that many ACC teams took on craptastic and expensive opponents to fill the last minute "just kidding we meant 8 games" void in their schedules.

if it happens it won't happen until 2016 at the earliest and will probably coincide with a 13 game regular season schedule. Hopefully if and when this happens they look at the divisions since its the never ending topic

(09-30-2013 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 01:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As far as Clemson is concerned we have given up enough of our OOC slate by being forced to play Notre Dame every so often.

Pitt is happy to take the ND games off your hands, as we have had to give them up as an annual, traditional opponent for this arrangement.

Somehow though, I doubt your AD sees giving up ND games as desirable.

If it meant playing a UGA/Auburn/Tennessee every year there is no doubt we would make that trade in a heartbeat.

Interesting, I understand UGA, but I didn't realize Clemson fans would care about Tennessee or Auburn. I know Pitt fans would never in a million years trade ND for any of those three schools but that's partially because of the history Pitt has with ND.

Notre Dame means more up north than it does down south, and playing SEC teams gets us more exposure in the areas we recruit.

It will be a real shame when Clemson fans fail to attend the ND games out of sheer apathy.

That half empty Clemson stadium will look bad when that matchup is televised on Raycom (relegated there due to lack of interest in the game throughout the South).

My suggestion is that Clemson opt out of that portion of the ACC/ND deal and let ND's ACC game commitment drop to four in the years that ND would have played Clemson.

(09-30-2013 08:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt is happy to take the ND games off your hands, as we have had to give them up as an annual, traditional opponent for this arrangement.

Somehow though, I doubt your AD sees giving up ND games as desirable.

If it meant playing a UGA/Auburn/Tennessee every year there is no doubt we would make that trade in a heartbeat.

Interesting, I understand UGA, but I didn't realize Clemson fans would care about Tennessee or Auburn. I know Pitt fans would never in a million years trade ND for any of those three schools but that's partially because of the history Pitt has with ND.

Notre Dame means more up north than it does down south, and playing SEC teams gets us more exposure in the areas we recruit.

It will be a real shame when Clemson fans fail to attend the ND games out of sheer apathy.

That half empty Clemson stadium will look bad when that matchup is televised on Raycom (relegated there due to lack of interest in the game throughout the South).

My suggestion is that Clemson opt out of that portion of the ACC/ND deal and let ND's ACC game commitment drop to four in the years that ND would have played Clemson.

We drew 81k for SC State. I feel sure we will be fine for a game against a program that has done less with more better than anybody out there.

As a side note maybe Golson can work past the issues and get back on with the Irish. Wish I could say it surprised me he got in trouble up there but there was a reason neither in-state school pursued him very much.

Good one Terry! I don't have a problem with letting teams opt out of the Notre Dame. However, I am not ready to let ND out of the 5 game deal.

It would work out good for scheduling if 4 schools (coincidentally the same number of schools with SEC rivals) opted out. That would leave 10 teams, meaning each team gets to play ND ever other year.

Considering all the debate we have had, I don't think a 9 game schedule works with only 12 games.

(09-30-2013 11:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In my view, the reason that the previous plan to go to 9 conference games was cancelled is that the addition of Notre Dame on a rotating basis was assumed to place too great of a burden on those schools with a permanent SEC rival, i.e. GT, CU, FSU, and now UL. Playing 9 conference games, an SEC rival and ND would make it impossible to play 7 home games in years that these schools played at Notre Dame (once every 6 years). Some resolution of this problem will need to be reached to move to a 9 game conference schedule.

An alternative to the 9 game conference schedule would be developing some kind of a scheduling alliance. There was talk at one point of developing such an alliance with the SEC. That doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. One possibility would be an alliance with BYU. For instance, if the ACC agreed to play 6 games per year against BYU (3 home and 3 away), in combination with the Notre Dame contracts and SEC rivalries, there would only be a need for each ACC member to find one other P5 opponent annually to maintain scheduling parity with those conferences playing 9 conference games.

Yeah but does BYU really deserve the consideration that Notre Dame does? I don't think so.

We want ND to join some day. Not the case with BYU.

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm not opposed to a 9th conference game in concept, I HATE how long it takes to cycle through the schedule. I'd actually like to go to 9 and then reallign divisions so we don't need permanent crossovers and consecutive home/homes. That would make a world of difference if you could through the entire opposite division in just over two seasons.

But, there's the issue with the SEC rivals and home games. It was going to be tough already, and with ND, it's just that much more difficult.

It's a really tough situation, and needs to be worked out, not just voted in over the objectives of your top football schools. You just can't do something that's going to hurt FSU, Louisville, Clemson and Georgia Tech, which happen to be probably 4 of the 6 teams this conference is counting on to carry the football banner. That's old-style thinking, and I think (and I pray) that the ACC has left that kind of approach behind.

I'm really afraid the ACC-SEC rivalries are going to be at risk of going away with a nine-game schedule in each conference. Save me the "It'll never happen" because we've heard that one before.

If the ACC-SEC rivalry games go away because the SEC is going to 9 games, I predict that the ACC won't be far behind.

(09-30-2013 05:11 PM)CardFANATIC Wrote:  I hate the 9 game schedule because I think it is unfair in the standings at the end of the year to have unbalanced home and away games.

I'm in favor of the 13 game schedule but will want 8-9 home games some years because of it.

(09-30-2013 08:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt is happy to take the ND games off your hands, as we have had to give them up as an annual, traditional opponent for this arrangement.

Somehow though, I doubt your AD sees giving up ND games as desirable.

If it meant playing a UGA/Auburn/Tennessee every year there is no doubt we would make that trade in a heartbeat.

Interesting, I understand UGA, but I didn't realize Clemson fans would care about Tennessee or Auburn. I know Pitt fans would never in a million years trade ND for any of those three schools but that's partially because of the history Pitt has with ND.

Notre Dame means more up north than it does down south, and playing SEC teams gets us more exposure in the areas we recruit.

It will be a real shame when Clemson fans fail to attend the ND games out of sheer apathy.

That half empty Clemson stadium will look bad when that matchup is televised on Raycom (relegated there due to lack of interest in the game throughout the South).

My suggestion is that Clemson opt out of that portion of the ACC/ND deal and let ND's ACC game commitment drop to four in the years that ND would have played Clemson.

Gee Terry, I'm pretty sure the ACC can come up with another school to fill in for Clemson. Don't you worry.

(09-30-2013 09:47 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 08:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:25 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 03:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If it meant playing a UGA/Auburn/Tennessee every year there is no doubt we would make that trade in a heartbeat.

Interesting, I understand UGA, but I didn't realize Clemson fans would care about Tennessee or Auburn. I know Pitt fans would never in a million years trade ND for any of those three schools but that's partially because of the history Pitt has with ND.

Notre Dame means more up north than it does down south, and playing SEC teams gets us more exposure in the areas we recruit.

It will be a real shame when Clemson fans fail to attend the ND games out of sheer apathy.

That half empty Clemson stadium will look bad when that matchup is televised on Raycom (relegated there due to lack of interest in the game throughout the South).

My suggestion is that Clemson opt out of that portion of the ACC/ND deal and let ND's ACC game commitment drop to four in the years that ND would have played Clemson.

Gee Terry, I'm pretty sure the ACC can come up with another school to fill in for Clemson. Don't you worry.

Tongue in cheek.

I doubt that Clemson's decision makers want to punt the ND games.

I still think the ACC should go to 9 conference games even with ND, but ONLY if there's a network involved.

(09-30-2013 09:37 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 11:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In my view, the reason that the previous plan to go to 9 conference games was cancelled is that the addition of Notre Dame on a rotating basis was assumed to place too great of a burden on those schools with a permanent SEC rival, i.e. GT, CU, FSU, and now UL. Playing 9 conference games, an SEC rival and ND would make it impossible to play 7 home games in years that these schools played at Notre Dame (once every 6 years). Some resolution of this problem will need to be reached to move to a 9 game conference schedule.

An alternative to the 9 game conference schedule would be developing some kind of a scheduling alliance. There was talk at one point of developing such an alliance with the SEC. That doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. One possibility would be an alliance with BYU. For instance, if the ACC agreed to play 6 games per year against BYU (3 home and 3 away), in combination with the Notre Dame contracts and SEC rivalries, there would only be a need for each ACC member to find one other P5 opponent annually to maintain scheduling parity with those conferences playing 9 conference games.

Yeah but does BYU really deserve the consideration that Notre Dame does? I don't think so.

We want ND to join some day. Not the case with BYU.

I'm not advocating for this, and certainly not advocating that BYU get the same deal that ND got (i.e., bowl tie ins, basketball membership). I am pointing out that a scheduling alliance is one strategy for creating the equivalent of a 9th conference game without actually doing so, and pointing out that BYU would be a logical candidate if such an approach were on the table.

I actually favor going to 9 conference games but recognize the legitimate concerns that this may raise for Clemson and others. A scheduling alliance with BYU would be a workable alternative if these concerns could not be addressed adequately to reach resolution.

Should only be done if the divisions are aligned properly. Otherwise no thanks. Schools like FSU/Clemson don't want to lose the chance to schedule up to compensate for the weak links in their division. With the 9th game being random, you would lose all opportunity for another 2 good OOC game outside of the SEC rivalry. That is unless people think it is a wise idea to give up more home games/money.

(10-01-2013 08:56 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Should only be done if the divisions are aligned properly. Otherwise no thanks. Schools like FSU/Clemson don't want to lose the chance to schedule up to compensate for the weak links in their division. With the 9th game being random, you would lose all opportunity for another 2 good OOC game outside of the SEC rivalry. That is unless people think it is a wise idea to give up more home games/money.

I agree. If you go north/south with one of the NC schools going north (or Miami is they want) Then you could have one perm in the other division and rotate the other two each year, thus playing everyone at least once every three years.

I really like the idea of 9 conference games. you cycle through the teams much faster and that is good for the conference. I don't like the uneven home and road games, but the trade off is worth it. I also think once 9 conference games come into play you will eventually see the season stretched to 13 games. It'll be interesting to see how OOC schedules look if there are only 3 open dates... 1 marquee matchup, on mid-level game, and one sure win game maybe?

(09-30-2013 03:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 01:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As far as Clemson is concerned we have given up enough of our OOC slate by being forced to play Notre Dame every so often.

Pitt is happy to take the ND games off your hands, as we have had to give them up as an annual, traditional opponent for this arrangement.

Somehow though, I doubt your AD sees giving up ND games as desirable.

If it meant playing a UGA/Auburn/Tennessee every year there is no doubt we would make that trade in a heartbeat.

I see the possible move to 9 games as a response to a prior move by the SEC. If the SEC goes to 9 games, UGA/Auburn/Tennessee are going to be pretty hard to schedule (UGA in particular due to their series with GT).

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm not opposed to a 9th conference game in concept, I HATE how long it takes to cycle through the schedule. I'd actually like to go to 9 and then reallign divisions so we don't need permanent crossovers and consecutive home/homes. That would make a world of difference if you could through the entire opposite division in just over two seasons.

But, there's the issue with the SEC rivals and home games. It was going to be tough already, and with ND, it's just that much more difficult.

It's a really tough situation, and needs to be worked out, not just voted in over the objectives of your top football schools. You just can't do something that's going to hurt FSU, Louisville, Clemson and Georgia Tech, which happen to be probably 4 of the 6 teams this conference is counting on to carry the football banner. That's old-style thinking, and I think (and I pray) that the ACC has left that kind of approach behind.

I'm really afraid the ACC-SEC rivalries are going to be at risk of going away with a nine-game schedule in each conference. Save me the "It'll never happen" because we've heard that one before.

What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation? If I'm calculating correctly, that leaves only 10 schools to rotate with ND; each gets ND every other year. I'd be pretty happy about BC counting on a ND home game every fourth year.