Sounds more than likely that the SEC will be moving to a 9th conf game. That will leave the ACC as the only conf with just 8 conf games. Although I prefer the 8 conf game schedule since it adds balance, it will become increasingly more difficult for most of the ACC schools to get that extra good quality OOC matchup. ND only fills 5 slots as a "9th" conf game. IMHO, it's a matter of when, not if the ACC goes to 9 conf games.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/09/alaba...gan-state/

I hope so.

I don't think it would be a problem for most of the schools... As a matter of fact, I think Virginia Tech's AD even suggested the ACC play 10 conference games. Lol.

The more conference games, the harder it will become for ND to stay out of the ACC as a football school.

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.

I am for it improves the quality of the schedule.

I wish we never played 7 home games.
That 7th game is usually a real stinker.

I hope not because that would be the end of interesting OOC games for Clemson, and I we would lose a ton of revenue from the 7th home game every other year.

With South Carolina every year and the unofficial mandate from Columbia that Clemson and South Carolina play an in-state FCS school every year that would leave us with one free OOC game, make it impossible for us to schedule any quality opponents like UGA/Auburn/etc, and again would cost us several million dollars in the years we get stuck with only six home games.

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.

(09-30-2013 01:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I hope not because that would be the end of interesting OOC games for Clemson, and I we would lose a ton of revenue from the 7th home game every other year.

No, I'm saying it would require you to give up a 7th home game once every 6 years - the year you play at ND.

However, you're correct that it would preclude you from playing 2 SEC opponents every year and maintaining 7 home games. 9 conference games plus SCar would put you at 5 home games, meaning that the other two would have to be G5 and FCS opponents to get to 7.

I'm hoping that Division 4 goes to a 13-game schedule with a max of 7 home games per year. The REAL problem is not that ACC teams need 7 home games, it's that ACC teams are competing with schools with 7 home games and are thus forced to do the same. If it expands to 8 home games the situation (scheduling OOC games) will just get worse because no one will ever want to come to your place.

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.

(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.

I'd rather have 9 conference games. It's not really going to affect UL-Uk, the Cards want to play the game, but Uk has wanted to drop the series for years. Pretty sure the move to the ACC has thwarted them, but only temporarily, they are all set to use an SEC move to 9 conf. games as their excuse to drop it.

So, whatever. Might as well play an extra conf. game + ND whenever they cycle through. I feel there are really too many useless cupcake games in the cfb season anyway... jmo/

(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.

I believe the SEC and ACC are committed to the 4 instate rivalry games. The challenge is that these 8 schools (ACC and SEC) will be precluded from playing any other P5 opponents during the regular season unless they want to give up their 7th home game. For ACC schools this would happen anyway every 6 years for ND.

(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.

Seriously, anyone who doesn't want to play ND can give their games to Pitt. Losing the annual game with ND is one of my least favorite things about the move to the ACC. I personally want the ACC to stay with 8 games because Pitt's major rivals are out of conference (PSU, WVU) so I want to keep more spots open to make it easier to schedule those games in the future.

(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.

(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.

(09-30-2013 03:16 PM)MKPitt 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.

Seriously, anyone who doesn't want to play ND can give their games to Pitt. Losing the annual game with ND is one of my least favorite things about the move to the ACC. I personally want the ACC to stay with 8 games because Pitt's major rivals are out of conference (PSU, WVU) so I want to keep more spots open to make it easier to schedule those games in the future.

As much as I'm very grateful that Pitt is in the ACC instead of the America, don't expect the ACC to do too many favors for Pitt. We're too new to have much of an impact on ACC policy at this point in time. Also, kinda sucks that ND would choose to put Pitt into the ACC rotation instead of opting for a 6th game against ACC opponents by making Pitt an annual game. It wouldn't be a huge stretch if this ever happened since Pitt is within the top 5 of schools most played by ND. Simply put, Pitt is clearly below USC, Stanford, Navy and Mich St as far as ND is concerned. This is why the fact that Pitt vs PSU not being an annual rivalry game just makes it that much harder for Pitt to find that special opponent. As much as I loathe WVU, at least they filled that role for awhile. Pitt now has no one. And PSU will NEVER opt for an annual rivalry game again - especially with the B1G going to 9 conf games.

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  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.

I can assure you that as long as they are fielding teams Clemson and South Carolina will meet every year. In 1952 when the Southern Conference suspended Clemson and Maryland and banned SoCon schools from playing both the SC General Assembly passed a resolution requiring the teams meet for that season only. A few years ago when the ACC stupidly enacted the 9 game slate the first time and there was a representative who filed a bill requiring the two schools meet annually. The only reason it did not make it out of committee was the assurance from both administrations and BOT that it was unnecessary because there is no realistic situation where either school would end the rivalry. You have a greater chance of ending Harvard/Yale than ending Clemson/South Carolina.

(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.