VT is not a "step-child". They are the prodigal son, come home.

(01-24-2020 10:51 PM)Statefan Wrote:  VT is not a "step-child". They are the prodigal son, come home.

A prodigal who left, not of his own free will, but was put out by the family for breaking house rules and siding with the smallest schools in the bowl ban vote.

Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

One problem: fewer conference games and no round-robin will result in more ties and tie-breakers determining the ACC CG.

Try this: list who Clemson would want to play in the ACC (7 teams), then list who UNC would want to play, then compare strength of schedule in conference.

(01-25-2020 10:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

One problem: fewer conference games and no round-robin will result in more ties and tie-breakers determining the ACC CG.

Try this: list who Clemson would want to play in the ACC (7 teams), then list who UNC would want to play, then compare strength of schedule in conference.

I'll do one better:

Here's Clemson's schedule under my scenario (arbitrarily assumes teams arranged to play alphabetically in order). I will run it for 7 years. They would play ND 2 or 3 times. I assume they would like to play a non-conference game w FSU or Miami or GT, when they aren't playing them in the regular ACC schedule. If they want the extra game.

Year One:

vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ Notre Dame (affiliate) (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, Citadel, 2 more)

Year Two:

@ NC St
vs Pitt
@ Cuse
vs UVA
@ VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Miami (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

Year Three:

vs Duke
@ FSU
vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@ UNC
vs NC St
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Four:

@ Pitt
vs Cuse
@ UVA
vs VT
@ Wake
vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU (not a conference game)
vs Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+ 3 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 1 more)

Year Five:

vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ NC St
vs Pitt
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Six:

@ Cuse
vs UVA
@VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Duke
@ FSU
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Seven:

vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@UNC
vs Pitt
@Cuse
vs UVA
@ Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

NOTE: In the scenario, I have shown Clemson playing FSU and Miami 5 time each in a 7 year span. But there's nothing to keep Clemson from adding Miami and FSU for more games.

(01-25-2020 11:03 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

One problem: fewer conference games and no round-robin will result in more ties and tie-breakers determining the ACC CG.

Try this: list who Clemson would want to play in the ACC (7 teams), then list who UNC would want to play, then compare strength of schedule in conference.

I'll do one better:

Here's Clemson's schedule under my scenario (arbitrarily assumes teams arranged to play alphabetically in order). I will run it for 7 years. They would play ND 2 or 3 times. I assume they would like to play a non-conference game w FSU or Miami or GT, when they aren't playing them in the regular ACC schedule. If they want the extra game.

Year One:

vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ Notre Dame (affiliate) (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, Citadel, 2 more)

Year Two:

@ NC St
vs Pitt
@ Cuse
vs UVA
@ VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Miami (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

Year Three:

vs Duke
@ FSU
vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@ UNC
vs NC St
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Four:

@ Pitt
vs Cuse
@ UVA
vs VT
@ Wake
vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU (not a conference game)
vs Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+ 3 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 1 more)

Year Five:

vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ NC St
vs Pitt
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Six:

@ Cuse
vs UVA
@VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Duke
@ FSU
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Seven:

vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@UNC
vs Pitt
@Cuse
vs UVA
@ Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

NOTE: In the scenario, I have shown Clemson playing FSU and Miami 5 time each in a 7 year span. But there's nothing to keep Clemson from adding Miami and FSU for more games.

Some of these years Clemson would have basically zero home games that the fans would care about. They'd have to use their non-conference schedule to beef it up.

(01-25-2020 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 11:03 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

One problem: fewer conference games and no round-robin will result in more ties and tie-breakers determining the ACC CG.

Try this: list who Clemson would want to play in the ACC (7 teams), then list who UNC would want to play, then compare strength of schedule in conference.

I'll do one better:

Here's Clemson's schedule under my scenario (arbitrarily assumes teams arranged to play alphabetically in order). I will run it for 7 years. They would play ND 2 or 3 times. I assume they would like to play a non-conference game w FSU or Miami or GT, when they aren't playing them in the regular ACC schedule. If they want the extra game.

Year One:

vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ Notre Dame (affiliate) (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, Citadel, 2 more)

Year Two:

@ NC St
vs Pitt
@ Cuse
vs UVA
@ VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Miami (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

Year Three:

vs Duke
@ FSU
vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@ UNC
vs NC St
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Four:

@ Pitt
vs Cuse
@ UVA
vs VT
@ Wake
vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU (not a conference game)
vs Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+ 3 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 1 more)

Year Five:

vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ NC St
vs Pitt
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Six:

@ Cuse
vs UVA
@VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Duke
@ FSU
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Seven:

vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@UNC
vs Pitt
@Cuse
vs UVA
@ Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

NOTE: In the scenario, I have shown Clemson playing FSU and Miami 5 time each in a 7 year span. But there's nothing to keep Clemson from adding Miami and FSU for more games.

Some of these years Clemson would have basically zero home games that the fans would care about. They'd have to use their non-conference schedule to beef it up.

As I originally stated, I used an arbitrary alphabetical ordering of teams played. Just for the sake of making a quick example.

It would be VERY simple to augment Clemson's FB schedule by rejiggering the order and by giving them added ACC-"non-ACC" punch.

But what's being directly hinted at is that Clemson (and probably a couple others) would like to play as strong a football First ACC schedule as possible. Only way to do that is to set up a mini-conference inside or outside the ACC.

Basically give Clemson an annual schedule of:

FSU
Miami
GT
VT
ND (once every 3)
and 3 other punching-bags.

That wouldn't be good for the conference but it would sure work out for the five or six teams that think they are FB teams first.

Do the same for BB.

Let Duke, UNC, UVA, Cuse and Louisville play their own mini-conference. Nope.

My solution is the best. It allows much more schedule flexibility and freedom than any other approach.

(01-25-2020 12:00 PM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 11:03 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Play a fully rotational schedule. One conference. No divisions. Every team rotates through the other 13 teams in order.

Play a 7 game ACC schedule. Four HOME, 3 AWAY first season; Three HOME, 4 AWAY second season. Then continue.

But all ACC members are allowed to schedule additional games vs other ACC members -- but those games are regarded as non-conference games. They don't count in league standings.

The TR schools are almost fully satisfied since they have the flexibility to add one or two of their TR friends every season.

The Football Powers are happy since they can strengthen their schedules any way they choose. Lots more flexibility.

Everyone is still happy to be playing Notre Dame once every 3 seasons (approximately).

The ACC declares its Championship game to be between the two teams with the best conference record (not counting any non-conference games with ACC opponents).

Voila.

One problem: fewer conference games and no round-robin will result in more ties and tie-breakers determining the ACC CG.

Try this: list who Clemson would want to play in the ACC (7 teams), then list who UNC would want to play, then compare strength of schedule in conference.

I'll do one better:

Here's Clemson's schedule under my scenario (arbitrarily assumes teams arranged to play alphabetically in order). I will run it for 7 years. They would play ND 2 or 3 times. I assume they would like to play a non-conference game w FSU or Miami or GT, when they aren't playing them in the regular ACC schedule. If they want the extra game.

Year One:

vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ Notre Dame (affiliate) (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, Citadel, 2 more)

Year Two:

@ NC St
vs Pitt
@ Cuse
vs UVA
@ VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Miami (not a Conference game)
+ 4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

Year Three:

vs Duke
@ FSU
vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@ UNC
vs NC St
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Four:

@ Pitt
vs Cuse
@ UVA
vs VT
@ Wake
vs BC
@ Duke
vs FSU (not a conference game)
vs Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+ 3 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 1 more)

Year Five:

vs FSU
@ GT
vs UL
@ Miami
vs UNC
@ NC St
vs Pitt
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Six:

@ Cuse
vs UVA
@VT
vs Wake
@ BC
vs Duke
@ FSU
+ 5 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 3 more)

Year Seven:

vs GT
@ UL
vs Miami
@UNC
vs Pitt
@Cuse
vs UVA
@ Notre Dame (affiliate, not a conference game)
+4 OOC games (South Carolina, The Citadel, 2 more)

NOTE: In the scenario, I have shown Clemson playing FSU and Miami 5 time each in a 7 year span. But there's nothing to keep Clemson from adding Miami and FSU for more games.

Some of these years Clemson would have basically zero home games that the fans would care about. They'd have to use their non-conference schedule to beef it up.

As I originally stated, I used an arbitrary alphabetical ordering of teams played. Just for the sake of making a quick example.

It would be VERY simple to augment Clemson's FB schedule by rejiggering the order and by giving them added ACC-"non-ACC" punch.

But what's being directly hinted at is that Clemson (and probably a couple others) would like to play as strong a football First ACC schedule as possible. Only way to do that is to set up a mini-conference inside or outside the ACC.

Basically give Clemson an annual schedule of:

FSU
Miami
GT
VT
ND (once every 3)
and 3 other punching-bags.

That wouldn't be good for the conference but it would sure work out for the five or six teams that think they are FB teams first.

Do the same for BB.

Let Duke, UNC, UVA, Cuse and Louisville play their own mini-conference. Nope.

My solution is the best. It allows much more schedule flexibility and freedom than any other approach.

No, no it's not. It might benefit some schools but it screws over the two schools you are expecting to carry the rest of the deadbeats in football by taking away their annual meeting. And what do they gain? Absolutely nothing.

Your proposal is just the status quo with the ACC. Do whatever you can to sabotage the very schools keeping your sorry asses afloat as a P5 football conference.

Clemson and Florida State have had success but have had down seasons also. Louisville come in second in the Atlantic and had zero depth this year after 25 players left the program. Once Satterfield gets his system set consistent Clemson will not be automatic like it is now. The ACC has made strides the programs are young and starting to spend money where money needs spent. ESPN is vested with the ACC network and that will help also. Clemson is the team right now but when Dabo leaves it will not be the end of the world the next school will step up. Enjoy your success while it last and don’t become arrogant.

(01-25-2020 02:32 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Clemson and Florida State have had success but have had down seasons also. Louisville come in second in the Atlantic and had zero depth this year after 25 players left the program. Once Satterfield gets his system set consistent Clemson will not be automatic like it is now. The ACC has made strides the programs are young and starting to spend money where money needs spent. ESPN is vested with the ACC network and that will help also. Clemson is the team right now but when Dabo leaves it will not be the end of the world the next school will step up. Enjoy your success while it last and don’t become arrogant.

Yeah, yeah....we've heard all about how Louisville was going to show out when they came in the conference. Yet to see it.

You might want to actually win the division once before you talk about what you are going to do. Hell, just beating Clemson at this point seems like a good goal. You certainly couldn't do it with the best player you'll ever see on your team.

And no, as has been proven before, there is nobody who will "step up." Nobody bothered to "step up" when both Clemson and FSU were down a decade ago. Nobody has shown the commitment to spending the resources needed to compete at the national level.

To be fair, UL has not been with the ACC a decade so we really don’t know. Besides that, their athletic department does really well.

(01-25-2020 08:02 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  To be fair, UL has not been with the ACC a decade so we really don’t know. Besides that, their athletic department does really well.

I suggest you utilize the search function and look at what the Louisville fans were saying coming in to the conference. One would have thought getting skull drug in 2018 would have taught them some humility and showed them they had a long way to go before being considered one of the top teams in the conference but obviously not.

Petrino never should’ve been hired the second time. If it wasn’t for Lamar, Petrino would’ve been fired sooner. One thing I know for sure Louisville is not afraid to pay the money to get the right coach. The key for Louisville is to keep a coach from leaving. Every sport Louisville has have had consistent coaches except football. You are right about having nothing to brag about yet but all I can say is get the wins you can now because change is coming and the cake walk is about to end. Don’t take me the wrong way I’m glad when Clemson or any other ACC school has success when Louisville isn’t. I think Louisville is two years from being ready by Satterfields system, we will be really young this year but the process has begun and we should have a little depth this year. I think we will have another 8-4 year.

(01-25-2020 09:35 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  t SED

Sorry if I laugh....we heard the same from Syracuse and Pitt about what they were going to do. To both school's credit, they actually beat Clemson in a single game but did absolutely nothing with it. Clemson utilized both to get better.

Satterfield was a good hire for y'all, but he's not a Louisville lifer. He'd leave you for the first non-Vandy SEC job or for UNC.

There is a difference in Syracuse and Pitt vs Louisville in recent success. Louisville was very successful in the Big East. I remember Louisville beating WV on a regular basis and WV beating Clemson by 70. Things change and right now is Clemson’s time. Pitt has had success with Narduzzi but not consistent success. I don’t know what to think about Babers yet? Syracuse was successful last year but fell flat this year. It was Florida State a few years ago and Clemson now. When Clemson has an off year or subpar someone else will step up. College football is going thru a change with the old school coaches getting older and retiring. I think the ACC has some young up and coming coaches and are in good position for success.

I grew up a Clemson fan and I attended Louisville so I feel I’m pretty neutral on this topic. Clemson and FSU should be extremely glad Louisville is in the conference. It’s a strong program that wants to be great. They have no issue spending money and have a strong fan base. They were a great addition. Louisville however needs to be realistic. They are essentially VT. A lot of potential that “could” get the ingredients right one year and play for a national championship. Realistically they are a program that should be an 8-4 every year school. It wasn’t long ago that’s what Clemson was. A top 25 team playing in a decent bowl.

(01-26-2020 05:52 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Things change and right now is Clemson’s time. I think the ACC has some young up and coming coaches and are in good position for success.

I agree completely!!

The football schools "other than Clemson obviously" are starting to wake up and I think have all made the correct hires. Just give it some time, and watch the dough rise.

(01-28-2020 01:06 PM)HRFlossY Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 05:52 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Things change and right now is Clemson’s time. I think the ACC has some young up and coming coaches and are in good position for success.

I agree completely!!

The football schools "other than Clemson obviously" are starting to wake up and I think have all made the correct hires. Just give it some time, and watch the dough rise.

Yeah, about that. We heard the same thing with Fuente, Fedora, Doeren, etc. New coaches always look like upgrades up until the point that they aren't .

What was Clemson before Dabo?

(01-29-2020 02:51 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  What was Clemson before Dabo?

I just answered that lol

“ It wasn’t long ago that’s what Clemson was. A top 25 team playing in a decent bowl.”