Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

(02-17-2016 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

RE SU-LSU: You're wrong. Ask any SU fan if they wish we hadn't played LSU. Ask them if the lead-up wasn't fun. I get that it didn't help your school, but your theory that it isn't fun for the schools involved is 100% wrong.

RE Strongest conference: I'd argue that the B1G is the strongest conference. In terms of football prestige, it's not far off the SEC (it might actually beat it), in terms of basketball prestige, it's way ahead of the SEC, in terms of money, it's probably ahead of the SEC, and in terms of general academic prestige, it's ahead of the SEC.

The SEC has a better product because it's recruiting is significantly better, but that has nothing to do with revenue sharing.

Look at the least equitable conferences. Historically they've been the Big XII and the BIG EAST. Look how that turned out. Admittedly, the lack of equality may have been the caused by their instability, but it's still not a good omen.

I'm sure SU fans are glad they played LSU, especially because playing them kind of close was the highlight of the season.

That doesn't change the fact that scheduling games like that ON THE REGULAR, plus additional tough games, is NOT the way a program builds. It's been proven again and again and again. Do you think SU and UVA fans enjoyed their seasons, because of the LSU, etc losses, more than Duke, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, etc schools are enjoying their seasons?

Bad programs build to the next level by scheduling winnable games out of conference, not losses out of conference. Of course when a program is pathetic, ADs try to chase the dragon by bringing in a big name to beat their school up to sell some tickets. But that is at the expense of an actually healthy program. Nobody in the last 30 years has elevated their program out of the basement by playing multiple out of conference games as underdogs.

Obviously, the higher a program's level, the higher they can schedule. Nobody thinks Baylor should STILL be playing their OOC schedule.

Syracuse won 4 games this year. Had we played (insert a terrible school here), we probably would have won 5, and our season would have consisted of a 4 game winning streak against WF, directional Michigan, Rhode Island, and (insert terrible school here), and a win against BC. Nobody would have been more excited.

The biggest win in the program's history was in 1984 against a #1 ranked Nebraska team, when a bad SU team shocked the world by beating them in the Dome. Under your plan, that game would have never been played, and there's a chance that SU would not have had the '87-'01 stretch of being really, really good.

I don't completely disagree with your basic point that the ACC has a tendency to over-schedule. You're directionally right. It's one thing to complain about playing PSU and ND in the same season OOC (like SU did a couple of years ago), but you're taking soft scheduling too far. Saying that schools like SU can't schedule any good OOC games (LSU was our only OOC game with a pulse when we scheduled them) would doom everyone in the Atlantic not named FSU, Clemson, and possibly Louisville to being Illinois, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas State (at best), Iowa State, and so on.

It's not about one game in a vacuum, but the only reason it "dooms" the other programs in the Atlantic to that is because the other programs, aside from maybe Louisville, can't handle more than that right now. Those are all totally reasonable opponents for Syracuse, NC State, BC and Wake Forest, and would be high quality wins for almost all of those schools. 3, 4, 5-win teams don't need to be testing their mettle vs Alabama, Ohio State, etc, they just don't, even if once in 40 years they might get a win.

Getting to bowl games on a year in year out basis, then climbing to 7-8 wins, is far more beneficial to a program than a single upset like BC over USC.

I'm not just making it up. EVERY school that has elevated has done it that way. I don't see Duke fans wringing their hands about not getting blitzed by Alabama or Michigan anymore? They're too busy enjoying their 8+ win seasons.

If you want to schedule an LSU once a decade, fine. But scheduling near-certain losses on the regular is NOT the way to climb, and it's been proven again and again.

Lou,

"This is the discussion we should be having, rather than arguing over WHETHER this discussion is even necessary. "


It seems it always comes down to this. The ACC is HAPPY where it is.

Only time will tell where that gets the ACC......

(02-17-2016 02:01 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Lou...don't worry...Cuse is scheduling easier in the future. They are adopting a 3-1 most years. 3-->winnable OOC games, 1-->national game versus a power team. The goal is 7 home games but occasionally 6 home games will happen.

It won't be perfectly followed but that is what I'm told is the basic guide going forward.

I looked at future schedules, and they seem to be taking a more reasonable plan forward. I have to think that was also probably considered to be important when it was going to come to luring a coach as well.

Remember our OOC schedule in the current decade was built in the nBE environment (post 2004). Cuse overscheduled OOC to make up for the fact they were not playing VTech, BC and Miami anymore. Our old AD (rightly) marketed Cuse as NY's college team to let them standout to the ACC (and B1G)...so a series of MetLife games were scheduled.

Going forward no reason to schedule more than 1 P5 OOC game anymore. We have 3-4 huge games as it is now without considering the OOC schedule.

Cuse needs to get bowl eligible within 2 years...then hope Babers can elevate the Cuse to Top 25-35. Ultimately there is no reason they can't have an occasional Top 10 team.

(02-17-2016 02:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

It's incredibly inconsistent. They also have a ton of leverage - more so than anyone else. If it's any consolation, if I could make ND join as a full member, I would.

FWIW, I don't think VT should schedule Alabama, either. Rule of Thumb: if you're the 5th best team in your conference, don't schedule the top 3 or 4 teams in some other conference (but don't always schedule the bottom feeders either - shoot for comparable opponents).

For VT (not including ACC-scheduled games with Notre Dame):
2016 - Tennessee is about right
2017 - WVU is perfect
2020 - Penn State is ok; Michigan is too hard (plus shouldn't play BOTH)
2021 - Michigan (see above); WVU (perfect)
2022 - WVU
2023 - Purdue (too easy) AND Rutgers (too easy)
2024 - Rutgers (easy) AND Wisconsin (about right)
2025 - Penn St AND Wisconsin (about right if one, but why both?)

(02-17-2016 02:10 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's not about one game in a vacuum, but the only reason it "dooms" the other programs in the Atlantic to that is because the other programs, aside from maybe Louisville, can't handle more than that right now. Those are all totally reasonable opponents for Syracuse, NC State, BC and Wake Forest, and would be high quality wins for almost all of those schools. 3, 4, 5-win teams don't need to be testing their mettle vs Alabama, Ohio State, etc, they just don't, even if once in 40 years they might get a win.

Getting to bowl games on a year in year out basis, then climbing to 7-8 wins, is far more beneficial to a program than a single upset like BC over USC.

I'm not just making it up. EVERY school that has elevated has done it that way. I don't see Duke fans wringing their hands about not getting blitzed by Alabama or Michigan anymore? They're too busy enjoying their 8+ win seasons.

If you want to schedule an LSU once a decade, fine. But scheduling near-certain losses on the regular is NOT the way to climb, and it's been proven again and again.

"It's not about one game in a vacuum..."
Exactly. The context is going 4-8 with an exciting game vs. possibly 5-7.

"...the only reason it "dooms" the other programs in the Atlantic to that is because the other programs, aside from maybe Louisville, can't handle more than that right now."
Says you. I find it hard to believe that Clemson and FSU are "doomed." One of those two teams has made a NCG 2/3 years and a FF the 3rd year. If that's "doomed," then by all means, "doom" Syracuse.

"3, 4, 5-win teams don't need to be testing their mettle vs Alabama, Ohio State, etc, they just don't, even if once in 40 years they might get a win."
Agreed, but they *do* need to be giving fans a reason to care. That reason is because all off season long, the fans can talk about beating PSU in week 1, or trying to stop a Heisman hopeful in week 5.

"Getting to bowl games on a year in year out basis, then climbing to 7-8 wins, is far more beneficial to a program than a single upset like BC over USC."
Once again, look at the context. It's less than a 1 game improvement (there's no guarantee that the easy game will be a win, or that the hard game will be a loss). Your theory only impacts teams that go 5-7 (or 4-7 against fbs schools, assuming the FCS game is a "gimme"). When your record is 5-6 against fbs teams and nobody OOC had a pulse, how much extra excitement is honestly generated by playing a MAC school in Detroit shortly after Christmas? How much buzz is there around your program?

"EVERY school that has elevated has done it that way."
This is obvious hyperbole. Most P5 schools have more than 2 marquee games on their schedule every year, even rising ones.

"I don't see Duke fans wringing their hands about not getting blitzed by Alabama or Michigan anymore?"
To be fair, I don't see Duke fans.

"If you want to schedule an LSU once a decade, fine. But scheduling near-certain losses on the regular is NOT the way to climb, and it's been proven again and again."
Tell that to Ole Miss. They've been scheduling Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, and LSU every year since 1991.

Seriously, I get what you're saying and you aren't completely wrong. In spirit, I actually agree with you, but we aren't exactly playing a murder's row schedule. FSU and Clemson are really, really good. Sure. Then who else on our schedule is killer? Look at the bigger picture.

(02-17-2016 03:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, I don't think VT should schedule Alabama, either. Rule of Thumb: if you're the 5th best team in your conference, don't schedule the top 3 or 4 teams in some other conference (but don't always schedule the bottom feeders either - shoot for comparable opponents).

For VT (not including ACC-scheduled games with Notre Dame):
2016 - Tennessee is about right
2017 - WVU is perfect
2020 - Penn State is ok; Michigan is too hard (plus shouldn't play BOTH)
2021 - Michigan (see above); WVU (perfect)
2022 - WVU
2023 - Purdue (too easy) AND Rutgers (too easy)
2024 - Rutgers (easy) AND Wisconsin (about right)
2025 - Penn St AND Wisconsin (about right if one, but why both?)

Yep, you nailed it. The double dips in 2020, 2021 and 2025 are absolutely ridiculous. That scheduling is insane.

(02-17-2016 03:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, I don't think VT should schedule Alabama, either. Rule of Thumb: if you're the 5th best team in your conference, don't schedule the top 3 or 4 teams in some other conference (but don't always schedule the bottom feeders either - shoot for comparable opponents).

For VT (not including ACC-scheduled games with Notre Dame):
2016 - Tennessee is about right
2017 - WVU is perfect
2020 - Penn State is ok; Michigan is too hard (plus shouldn't play BOTH)
2021 - Michigan (see above); WVU (perfect)
2022 - WVU
2023 - Purdue (too easy) AND Rutgers (too easy)
2024 - Rutgers (easy) AND Wisconsin (about right)
2025 - Penn St AND Wisconsin (about right if one, but why both?)

2026 - Maryland
2027 - Maryland
2028 - Maryland
2029 - Maryland

I'm surprised it's happening. I wish the College Park games could be played in FedEx Field.

(02-17-2016 02:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

FSU should have stayed a football independent instead of joining the ACC???? :)

(02-18-2016 08:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

FSU should have stayed a football independent instead of joining the ACC???? :)

Terry I like Notre Dame, but I absolutely understand where nole is coming from!

As the landscape of college sports becomes less accomodating for independents, the terms of the ACC / Notre Dame deal may change when it's time to renew... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's "all in" at that point. (how many years are left?)

I think the time table is growing shorter as I write this.

(02-18-2016 08:09 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

FSU should have stayed a football independent instead of joining the ACC???? :)

Terry I like Notre Dame, but I absolutely understand where nole is coming from!

Not everyone has a network that's so desperate for college football that they are willing to WAY overpay them for a few games a year.

(02-17-2016 03:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For VT (not including ACC-scheduled games with Notre Dame):
2016 - Tennessee is about right
2017 - WVU is perfect
2020 - Penn State is ok; Michigan is too hard (plus shouldn't play BOTH)
2021 - Michigan (see above); WVU (perfect)
2022 - WVU
2023 - Purdue (too easy) AND Rutgers (too easy)
2024 - Rutgers (easy) AND Wisconsin (about right)
2025 - Penn St AND Wisconsin (about right if one, but why both?)

What year do the Hokies join the Big 10 East again?

(02-18-2016 10:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:09 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Funny....Notre Dame gets to eat what it kills and the ACC seems to be OK with it.

Inconsistency anyone?

FSU should have stayed a football independent instead of joining the ACC???? :)

Terry I like Notre Dame, but I absolutely understand where nole is coming from!

Not everyone has a network that's so desperate for college football that they are willing to WAY overpay them for a few games a year.

First, NBC got a pretty good deal from the ND contract. It loves the deal and in fact renewed it for ten years recently when it was always five year renewals since the original 1991 deal.

So, I deny that NBC has "overpaid" ND at all, let alone "WAY overpaid". The original contract was for $9 million/yr., then went up to $15 million/year in 2010 and now is supposedly $22 million/yr. (ND is private so no FOIA requests).

The contract is for seven games per year, so the "few games a year" quote by Lenville is not exactly accurate, either.

Second, FSU was an independent too. It could have signed up with NBC or some other network for its football back then and stayed independent.

I am not saying that FSU should have, but they could have. It chose full conference membership as serving its best interests. I understand and defer to that decision.

I am in no way disparaging FSU. It made its own choices based on its available options and what seemed to best serve its interests.

ND decided to stay independent in football and sign a stand alone deal with NBC. That is in their best interests and others should understand and defer likewise.

Each institution gets to decide what is in its own best interests.

FSU could even have decided that it too wanted a "Notre Dame type deal" from the ACC in 2012 prior to the increase in the exit fee and the signing of the GOR, but it did not.

FSU could have then, at that moment, decided to "eat what it kills", but chose to stay with the ACC in full membership.

(02-18-2016 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  As the landscape of college sports becomes less accomodating for independents, the terms of the ACC / Notre Dame deal may change when it's time to renew... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's "all in" at that point. (how many years are left?)

11, I believe. I am fairly sure the deal expires in 2027.

Heck, there may be a new (weakened/backfilled) or no ACC by then. It might be ND with more leverage then. Who knows?

(02-18-2016 01:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  As the landscape of college sports becomes less accomodating for independents, the terms of the ACC / Notre Dame deal may change when it's time to renew... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's "all in" at that point. (how many years are left?)

11, I believe. I am fairly sure the deal expires in 2027.

Heck, there may be a new (weakened/backfilled) or no ACC by then. It might be ND with more leverage then. Who knows?

I do, but I'll only tell Hokie Mark. If you want to know, you're going to have to PM him and ask by using the access code "Butterscotch Lollipop Stick"

(02-18-2016 02:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 01:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  As the landscape of college sports becomes less accomodating for independents, the terms of the ACC / Notre Dame deal may change when it's time to renew... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's "all in" at that point. (how many years are left?)

11, I believe. I am fairly sure the deal expires in 2027.

Heck, there may be a new (weakened/backfilled) or no ACC by then. It might be ND with more leverage then. Who knows?

I do, but I'll only tell Hokie Mark. If you want to know, you're going to have to PM him and ask by using the access code "Butterscotch Lollipop Stick"

I thought you said it was "scotch on the rocks with a twist"!

Actually its: