(12-11-2018 01:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 08:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  What reason does the ACC have to accommodate the B1G? Especially after the B1G shot basically the same idea down when the ACC wanted to try it in an effort to get Notre Dame into the championship game?

Because it would benefit the ACC. We don't care about the Big Ten.

How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game? NO

If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules. BEST OPTION - GET RID OF THEM

Even though the rule is about conference championship games, the effect is to severely restrict how you can schedule the regular season. For a conference divided geographically - like the SEC or the Big Ten - it's not that big of a deal because the teams near you are in your division. However, the way the ACC divisions are set up creates some very undesirable side effects such as...
...Duke and NC State don't play
...UNC and Wake Forest don't play
...Wake also doesn't play VT
...FSU and GT don't play
...Louisville doesn't play either VT or Pitt
...Pitt and BC don't play
...Duke, UNC and UVA rarely play Clemson any more

Some of these are guaranteed sell outs too - but they only happen once every 6 years under the current division/scheduling arrangement. If you could eliminate divisions, these games could happen twice every four years!

Good summary of missing games, also:

BC and Miami don’t play
Syracuse and Miami don’t play
VaTech and NC State, Clemson and FSU don’t play (the Gobblers have more traditional opponents in the Atlantic, but you know that)

To X’s point about why help the Big Ten:

UVA and Maryland don’t play

Hmmm

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 08:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  What reason does the ACC have to accommodate the B1G? Especially after the B1G shot basically the same idea down when the ACC wanted to try it in an effort to get Notre Dame into the championship game?

Because it would benefit the ACC. We don't care about the Big Ten.

How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game?
The Irish would have been crazy to play against Clemson and get knocked out of the final four.
If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules.
Why make it easier for the B1G when they crapped all over us?

You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Because it would benefit the ACC. We don't care about the Big Ten.

How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game?
The Irish would have been crazy to play against Clemson and get knocked out of the final four.
If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules.
Why make it easier for the B1G when they crapped all over us?

You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game?
The Irish would have been crazy to play against Clemson and get knocked out of the final four.
If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules.
Why make it easier for the B1G when they crapped all over us?

You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

I'm still waiting on my consultant check from the conference too. All kidding aside, it can't hurt to play those matchups more often.

Some one send OrangeDude's post to Swofford and the PTB.

(12-13-2018 07:20 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

I'm still waiting on my consultant check from the conference too. All kidding aside, it can't hurt to play those matchups more often.

You can make VT & Louisville an annual game without changing the divisions. That aside I would prefer the 3-5-5 format.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-13-2018 10:26 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:20 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

I'm still waiting on my consultant check from the conference too. All kidding aside, it can't hurt to play those matchups more often.

You can make VT & Louisville an annual game without changing the divisions. That aside I would prefer the 3-5-5 format.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, which is why I used that for the example instead of say Clemson-VT because that would be more difficult under the current situation due to the Clemson-GT rivalry as I understand it.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-13-2018 09:21 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Some one send OrangeDude's post to Swofford and the PTB.

Here's the feedback form:

http://theacc.com/sb_output.aspx?form=9

(12-13-2018 01:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:21 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Some one send OrangeDude's post to Swofford and the PTB.

Here's the feedback form:

http://theacc.com/sb_output.aspx?form=9

Thank you very very much. Just sent it in.

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  How?
Does the conference still want Notre Dame included in the championship game?
The Irish would have been crazy to play against Clemson and get knocked out of the final four.
If we are not putting a good product on the field for the championship game, we need to look at the divisions before changing conference rules.
Why make it easier for the B1G when they crapped all over us?

You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

This is not a new idea, no offense. We’ve been saying this for years.

(12-13-2018 10:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  This is not a new idea, no offense. We’ve been saying this for years.

Yeah, but we don't have bowl reps wining and dining us and generally making it hard to think clearly... we're just ordinary fans of the game.

Seriously, I do think sometimes these guys can't see the big picture because of the money that's right in front of them.

(12-13-2018 10:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You will be able to play league rivals more often from the Atlantic

But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

This is not a new idea, no offense. We’ve been saying this for years.

Not sure exactly when the discussion of division-less structure with a 3-5-5 scheduling model began. The first time I recall hearing about it was by Woad Blue/Southern Pigskin back in 2012(?) brought the concept to the syracusefan.com board. Being a fan from a program still in the Big East which only had 8 members in it, the concept wasn't a priority for me back then. But I quickly adopted it after we were in the conference for a year or so realizing how long it would take to cycle through Syracuse playing Miami and VT not to mention the ridiculousness of cycling through ND more often than 6 full conference mates from the Coastal division.

So true, the 3-5-5 scheduling model isn't new. But I believe rarely, if ever that I can recall, anyone has chosen to approach the problem from a practical conference perspective of suggesting that the TV attractive match-ups occur more often. Most of the conversation has usually been about fan of so-so program must play this team plus that team annually, and oh wait this other team as well for reasons such as history, recruiting, etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I don't think the few positive posts I have received in this thread has much to do with advocating the 3-5-5 division-less structure but more to do with my suggestion of the approach the conference should consider if they do indeed go this route.

Cheers,
Neil

The Great GTS Post-Delany-Butthurt-Rulechange Schedule Solution (GG-PDBR-SS):

U: FSU, BC, CU, Pitt, Cuse
FSU: U, GT, NCST, CU, UVA
GT: CU, FSU, Duke, UNC, VT
CU: GT, NCST, U, FSU, Cuse

WF: NCST, UNC, Duke, VT, BC
NCST: WF, Duke, UNC, CU, FSU
UNC: Duke, WF, NCST, UVA, GT
Duke: UNC, NCST, WF, GT, Pitt

VT: UVA, UofL, WF, GT, Pitt
UVA: UNC, VT, UofL, FSU, BC
UofL: VT, UVA, Pitt, Cuse, BC

Pitt: UofL, Cuse, Duke, U, VT
Cuse: BC, Pitt, U, UofL, CU
BC: Cuse, U, UVA, UofL, WF

Rotate all other teams. (I think I got this right. *squint* Suggested fixes will be entertained.)

M. Night Shyamalan Twist: Make the permanent games home and home for maximum filthy lucre. 10 conference games plus OOC rival plus ND/OOC wiggle room. Scheduling over. Inventory maximized. Gate revenue maximized. TV pull maximized.

(12-13-2018 11:51 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 01:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 04:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  But we would only be interested in playing Wake Forest, Clemson and Florida State from the Atlantic more often than we do. That trio is also the same three teams that most of the other Coastal teams would want to play more often, how can everybody be accommodated?
Why can't we just give up Pitt, Virginia Tech and Miami and you guys can send us Wake, Clemson and FSU?

First, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares about making things easier for the Big Ten, which I think you already knew.

As for your immediate post above, being part of a conference, as again I believe you know, means there needs to be give and take (compromise) between what is best for the individual institution (which should never be totally forgotten by them) and what is best for the overall conference (which will sometimes mean what is best for an individual institution will not happen). And when it is the latter, the best the individual institution can do is negotiate something in return if they have the necessary clout.

There is a reason UNC and Duke play home-and-home in basketball every year. Not only is that the single greatest rivalry in college basketball but it also benefits the conference to have that game played at least twice a year due to the ratings those games generate.

Now, what happens if we apply that same thinking to football scheduling? Below are the top 5 ACC teams in terms of average number of viewers from 2013-2018 for all conference games (excluding ACC championship games) shown on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 ranked by average number of viewers:

Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech

Taking into account just those 5 programs, there is a potential for 10 match-ups annually. However, with the current division structure only 5 of those potential match-ups occur annually, while the other 5 happen only twice each in a 14 year time period or 0.71 match-up added to the current annual 5. Those 5 annual games over the past six seasons (or five if the Cards are involved) are as follows:

FSU-Miami - average of 5.278 million viewers
FSU-Clemson - average of 5.166 million viewers
Clemson-Louisville - average of 4.497 million viewers
FSU-Louisville - average of 3.535 million viewers
Miami-VT - average of 1.465 million viewers

Going to a 3-5-5 scheduling means the 5 missing match-ups happen at least twice every 4 years. Below are the viewer numbers for the last time one of those 5 match-ups took place in the regular season (again, excluding the ACCCG) and the number of viewers watching that game):

FSU-VT (5.576 million viewers)
Clemson-Miami (2.634 million viewers)
Clemson-VT (4.693 million viewers)
Miami-L'Ville (3.610 million viewers)
VT-L'Ville (hasn't happened yet)

As I see it, the ACC national TV contract is leaving money on the table if it doesn't do everything it can to support no divisions for football and then once that change is approved go to a 3-5-5 scheduling model. Especially if let's say for hypothetical purposes VT's three annual games were Miami, Virginia, and Louisville. Using that scenario solid ACC annual match-ups over a 4 year period increase from 22/23 to 32.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, if you will forward your resume', I will hand deliver it to Johnny.

This is not a new idea, no offense. We’ve been saying this for years.

Not sure exactly when the discussion of division-less structure with a 3-5-5 scheduling model began. The first time I recall hearing about it was by Woad Blue/Southern Pigskin back in 2012(?) brought the concept to the syracusefan.com board. Being a fan from a program still in the Big East which only had 8 members in it, the concept wasn't a priority for me back then. But I quickly adopted it after we were in the conference for a year or so realizing how long it would take to cycle through Syracuse playing Miami and VT not to mention the ridiculousness of cycling through ND more often than 6 full conference mates from the Coastal division.

So true, the 3-5-5 scheduling model isn't new. But I believe rarely, if ever that I can recall, anyone has chosen to approach the problem from a practical conference perspective of suggesting that the TV attractive match-ups occur more often. Most of the conversation has usually been about fan of so-so program must play this team plus that team annually, and oh wait this other team as well for reasons such as history, recruiting, etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I don't think the few positive posts I have received in this thread has much to do with advocating the 3-5-5 division-less structure but more to do with my suggestion of the approach the conference should consider if they do indeed go this route.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
Anyone that has been following realignment for any length of time has encountered WoadBlue. Some folks hate him others think he hung the moon. Personally I think he is and has been a true expansion/realignment visionary and, Neil you were kind to give him props. I likewise hold you (OmniCarrier/OmniOrange/OrangeDude) in similar esteem.
Scheduling is something we discuss often but don't really emphasize the impact on realignment. After years of trying to get to 4 conferences of 16, or looking at 15 with three divisions of 5. I am now starting to believe that it is unlikely that anyone will actually go beyond 14 full time members for football.

(12-14-2018 02:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The Great GTS Post-Delany-Butthurt-Rulechange Schedule Solution (GG-PDBR-SS):

U: FSU, BC, CU, Pitt, Cuse
FSU: U, GT, NCST, CU, UVA
GT: CU, FSU, Duke, UNC, VT
CU: GT, NCST, U, FSU, Cuse

WF: NCST, UNC, Duke, VT, BC
NCST: WF, Duke, UNC, CU, FSU
UNC: Duke, WF, NCST, UVA, GT
Duke: UNC, NCST, WF, GT, Pitt

VT: UVA, UofL, WF, GT, Pitt
UVA: UNC, VT, UofL, FSU, BC
UofL: VT, UVA, Pitt, Cuse, BC

Pitt: UofL, Cuse, Duke, U, VT
Cuse: BC, Pitt, U, UofL, CU
BC: Cuse, U, UVA, UofL, WF

Rotate all other teams. (I think I got this right. *squint* Suggested fixes will be entertained.)

M. Night Shyamalan Twist: Make the permanent games home and home for maximum filthy lucre. 10 conference games plus OOC rival plus ND/OOC wiggle room. Scheduling over. Inventory maximized. Gate revenue maximized. TV pull maximized.

Not bad. I don't know if I'd call it "maximized" when one of the biggest games of the year is always Miami/VT and you've dropped that from the annual list. (I understand it would come 3 out of every 8 years, along with FSU/VT and Clemson/VT, but still it's a step backwards to go with the many steps forward...)

All in all I prefer limiting the annual games to 3, then use the other 5 to cycle through the rest of the conference every other year (or twice every 4).

Better TV match-ups has always been one of the results of playing teams more often in conference. I know I’ve said it, I’m sure others have. Of course we are leaving money on the table. Historic rivalries leave ticket and concession money on the table, not to mention campus bookstores and the local businesses. UNC hosting Wake brings more interest than hosting Pitt, therefore it should be played more often.

As far as OrangeDude being a visionary, I definitely didn’t think that a years back when I was being reamed by him for suggesting Creighton as a viable option for the new Big East.

(12-14-2018 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not bad. I don't know if I'd call it "maximized" when one of the biggest games of the year is always Miami/VT and you've dropped that from the annual list. (I understand it would come 3 out of every 8 years, along with FSU/VT and Clemson/VT, but still it's a step backwards to go with the many steps forward...)

All in all I prefer limiting the annual games to 3, then use the other 5 to cycle through the rest of the conference every other year (or twice every 4).

U: FSU, BC, CU, Pitt, VT
FSU: U, GT, NCST, CU, UVA
GT: CU, FSU, Duke, UNC, BC
CU: GT, NCST, U, FSU, Cuse

WF: NCST, UNC, Duke, VT, BC
NCST: WF, Duke, UNC, CU, FSU
UNC: Duke, WF, NCST, UVA, GT
Duke: UNC, NCST, WF, GT, Pitt

VT: UVA, UofL, WF, U, Pitt
UVA: UNC, VT, UofL, FSU, BC
UofL: VT, UVA, Pitt, Cuse, BC

Pitt: UofL, Cuse, Duke, U, VT
Cuse: BC, Pitt, U, UofL, CU
BC: Cuse, UVA, UofL, WF, GT


To get VT-U you have to give up VT-GT. I don't think any of the other 4 for VT are budge-able. I also think it's impossible to guarantee all the rivalries unless you go to 5 guaranteed games.

(12-14-2018 11:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  Better TV match-ups has always been one of the results of playing teams more often in conference. I know I’ve said it, I’m sure others have. Of course we are leaving money on the table. Historic rivalries leave ticket and concession money on the table, not to mention campus bookstores and the local businesses. UNC hosting Wake brings more interest than hosting Pitt, therefore it should be played more often.

As far as OrangeDude being a visionary, I definitely didn’t think that a years back when I was being reamed by him for suggesting Creighton as a viable option for the new Big East.

X-Lance was being very kind to label me as a visionary. I see myself mostly as a nerd with common sense (most of the time). As I often say, I have been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future. It's part of being human. I honestly don't recall any deep discussions with you about Creighton. Most of our interactions as I recall were back in my Big East days when we discussed the relative merits of UMass.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-14-2018 11:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not bad. I don't know if I'd call it "maximized" when one of the biggest games of the year is always Miami/VT and you've dropped that from the annual list. (I understand it would come 3 out of every 8 years, along with FSU/VT and Clemson/VT, but still it's a step backwards to go with the many steps forward...)

All in all I prefer limiting the annual games to 3, then use the other 5 to cycle through the rest of the conference every other year (or twice every 4).

U: FSU, BC, CU, Pitt, VT
FSU: U, GT, NCST, CU, UVA
GT: CU, FSU, Duke, UNC, BC
CU: GT, NCST, U, FSU, Cuse

WF: NCST, UNC, Duke, VT, BC
NCST: WF, Duke, UNC, CU, FSU
UNC: Duke, WF, NCST, UVA, GT
Duke: UNC, NCST, WF, GT, Pitt

VT: UVA, UofL, WF, U, Pitt
UVA: UNC, VT, UofL, FSU, BC
UofL: VT, UVA, Pitt, Cuse, BC

Pitt: UofL, Cuse, Duke, U, VT
Cuse: BC, Pitt, U, UofL, CU
BC: Cuse, UVA, UofL, WF, GT


To get VT-U you have to give up VT-GT. I don't think any of the other 4 for VT are budge-able. I also think it's impossible to guarantee all the rivalries unless you go to 5 guaranteed games.

Ideally, VT would have these 5 annual games: UVA, UL, GT, UM, Pitt
However, after a few attempts I see that would be difficult to achieve.
So what you have here might be as good as it gets.

(12-14-2018 02:13 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  Better TV match-ups has always been one of the results of playing teams more often in conference. I know I’ve said it, I’m sure others have. Of course we are leaving money on the table. Historic rivalries leave ticket and concession money on the table, not to mention campus bookstores and the local businesses. UNC hosting Wake brings more interest than hosting Pitt, therefore it should be played more often.

As far as OrangeDude being a visionary, I definitely didn’t think that a years back when I was being reamed by him for suggesting Creighton as a viable option for the new Big East.

X-Lance was being very kind to label me as a visionary. I see myself mostly as a nerd with common sense (most of the time). As I often say, I have been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future. It's part of being human. I honestly don't recall any deep discussions with you about Creighton. Most of our interactions as I recall were back in my Big East days when we discussed the relative merits of UMass.

Cheers,
Neil

Interestingly UMass ended up making the jump! I have a good memory of Creighton because it was pretty bold at the time and it came true. I was also on the Nebraska to the Big Ten train fairly early as well. Something about that state..

Anyhow, I’ve been wrong as well. I thought the Big XII would replace CU and NU with Air Force and BYU, but then the A&M and Mizzou departures crippled the conference.