Momentum Building For 9 Game ACC Schedule

[Drew]

Momentum building for nine-game ACC football schedule

Men’s basketball is bumping the league schedule from 18 to 20 games, effective in 2019-20. ESPN gave football more flexibility, presenting two options, one of which will be implemented in 2019:

# Expand the conference schedule to nine games and retain the current mandate for each team to play at least one non-conference opponent from a Power Five league. Call this the 9+1 model.

# Remain at eight games, but require each school to play at least two non-conference contests every season against teams from Power Five leagues. Call this 8+2.

And there’s the rub. ACC athletic directors voted 8-6 in 2014 to remain at eight league games and require all teams to play at least one Power Five non-conference game – Virginia Tech’s Whit Babcock sided with the majority, Virginia’s Craig Littlepage with the minority.

 

[CTMike]

I don't know what it means so I'll just assume our ACC invite is in the mail.

 

[pick6s]

I wonder if a compromise could be adding a 15th team (hopefully UConn) which would also add some inventory for ESPN (though not as much as adding a 9th conference game). The conference would then go to three divisions with five teams each. You would play the other four in your division annually as well as rotating two opponents from each of the other divisions per year.

Here's where it gets interesting: you could potentially make lots of new money by having a mini tournament for the conference championship- the three division winners and a wild card team would play semis and then a final to determine the conference champ. That would mean lots of new money (due to the two new conference tournament semifinal games). What do you guys think of this idea?

 

[SubbaBub]

It means they are feeling puffed up because they have two good teams this year not named FSU, and two decent teams named FSU and Miami.

They seem to think the B12 is dying.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

They seem to think the B12 is dying.

And they're right.

 

[JSM1970]

Honestly, I wonder if OU really wants the B12 to remain viable? I think they just want Texas to be blamed for its demise while they benefit by jumping to the SEC or B1G, which was always their desire

The SEC makes the most sense, could care less about academics and OU can probably force OSU with them while the B1G would never take OSU

I could see Mizzou leaving the SEC to the B1G as a partner with Kansas, which could put OSU in a tough spot unless they find another school

It means they are feeling puffed up because they have two good teams this year not named FSU, and two decent teams named FSU and Miami.

They seem to think the B12 is dying.

 

[Fishy]

Honestly, I wonder if OU really wants the B12 to remain viable? I think they just want Texas to be blamed for its demise while they benefit by jumping to the SEC or B1G, which was always their desire

The SEC makes the most sense, could care less about academics and OU can probably force OSU with them while the B1G would never take OSU

I could see Mizzou leaving the SEC to the B1G as a partner with Kansas, which could put OSU in a tough spot unless they find another school

In a vacuum, I think Oklahoma actually does want the Big 12 to remain viable - but I don't think they're willing to die on that hill if they don't get some consideration. If they are really shackled to Okie State, they may have to make the Big 12 work - it's hard to imagine the SEC offering to pay $80M a year to the state of Oklahoma.

The Big Ten passed on Missouri once and I don't see any reason why they would reconsider, especially as part of a Kansas package.

 

[bobbyinaz]

In a vacuum, I think Oklahoma actually does want the Big 12 to remain viable - but I don't think they're willing to die on that hill if they don't get some consideration. If they are really shackled to Okie State, they may have to make the Big 12 work - it's hard to imagine the SEC offering to pay $80M a year to the state of Oklahoma.

The Big Ten passed on Missouri once and I don't see any reason why they would reconsider, especially as part of a Kansas package.

Missouri was actually begging for a B1G invite for about a year and got nothing back from them. There is no way the B1G is going to add Mizzou

 

[TerryD]

I wonder if a compromise could be adding a 15th team (hopefully UConn) which would also add some inventory for ESPN (though not as much as adding a 9th conference game). The conference would then go to three divisions with five teams each. You would play the other four in your division annually as well as rotating two opponents from each of the other divisions per year.

Here's where it gets interesting: you could potentially make lots of new money by having a mini tournament for the conference championship- the three division winners and a wild card team would play semis and then a final to determine the conference champ. That would mean lots of new money (due to the two new conference tournament semifinal games). What do you guys think of this idea?

Didn't the Big Ten lead the charge recently to vote down this idea?

 

[TerryD]

It means they are feeling puffed up because they have two good teams this year not named FSU, and two decent teams named FSU and Miami.

They seem to think the B12 is dying.

I figured it was for more content for ESPN and the ACC Network.

 

[JSM1970]

Good points, just thinking where could the SEC (if they want to get to 16) go for expansion given that no way would A&M support UT? They could keep OSU's share low knowing T Boone would offset any revenue losses for some period

In a vacuum, I think Oklahoma actually does want the Big 12 to remain viable - but I don't think they're willing to die on that hill if they don't get some consideration. If they are really shackled to Okie State, they may have to make the Big 12 work - it's hard to imagine the SEC offering to pay $80M a year to the state of Oklahoma.

The Big Ten passed on Missouri once and I don't see any reason why they would reconsider, especially as part of a Kansas package.

 

[Drew]

I also wonder of the unintended consequences on these conferences going to 9 game conference schedules. If the ACC joins the 9 game conference schedule crew (which with 14+ teams you absolutely should) that means only the SEC has 8 conference games per year moving forward. The more conference games the P5 play against each other, the fewer "money game" opportunities there are for the G5 teams moving forward. 9 game conference schedules IMO mean you see even less and less H/H series opportunities with lower level P5 teams for G5 opponents. There just won't be the financial incentive. If the full P5 moves to 9 game schedules, I wonder if the AAC will either move to a 9 game schedule or look to form a scheduling alliance with say the MWC to try to ensure enough quality OOC games moving forward.

 

[Irishfan]

I wonder if a compromise could be adding a 15th team (hopefully UConn) which would also add some inventory for ESPN (though not as much as adding a 9th conference game). The conference would then go to three divisions with five teams each. You would play the other four in your division annually as well as rotating two opponents from each of the other divisions per year.

Here's where it gets interesting: you could potentially make lots of new money by having a mini tournament for the conference championship- the three division winners and a wild card team would play semis and then a final to determine the conference champ. That would mean lots of new money (due to the two new conference tournament semifinal games). What do you guys think of this idea?

Under this scenario, an ACC team that makes it to the national championship game will play a 16 game season. If they expand the playoff to 8 teams it will mean a 17 game season. I doubt the ACC athletic directors would want to have a season longer than the NFL.

 

[pick6s]

Under this scenario, an ACC team that makes it to the national championship game will play a 16 game season. If they expand the playoff to 8 teams it will mean a 17 game season. I doubt the ACC athletic directors would want to have a season longer than the NFL.

You wouldn't need an eight team playoff because the conference semis would become part of the playoff. The four power conference tournament winners would play for the national championship. Why only four power conferences? Because there's no way the Big 12 and its ten teams could have a four-team playoff, meaning the conference would be at a significant disadvantage financially compared to the ACC (with the Big Ten and SEC soon to follow in adding semis). Therefore, Texas and Oklahoma would no longer be content in the Big 12. Texas would likely leave for the Big Ten while Oklahoma would probably leave for the SEC (and since these two conferences would see OU's and UT's moves coming, I could see them supporting this change- wouldn't you support this change if you were the Big Ten and you thought this would land you U Texas?). I have a few unanswered questions like what the PAC 12 would do and how Notre Dame fits into this system (unless they join the ACC in football as its 15th member) but I think it's an interesting proposal.

 

[pick6s]

Didn't the Big Ten lead the charge recently to vote down this idea?

Good question. I'm not sure. Having said that, see the comment above where I explain that the Big Ten might vote for the proposal because it recognizes that in doing so it would probably land U Texas and the SEC would realize that it would land OU. Also, the American and Mountain West would get to pick up the remaining teams from the Big 12.

 

[MattMang23]

Literally zero access to a national championship opportunity for a G5 school? Great idea. Lawsuit waiting to happen.

Don't worry American Conference, we've taken away any shot any of your teams can win the national championship but the trade-off is you get to add Kansas St!

 

[billybud]

"Once Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany started analyzing what complete conference championship game deregulation would mean, he put up a roadblock and the Big Ten offered up an amendment. Conferences would be able to hold a championship game in one of two ways: between division winners after round-robin competition in each division, or between the top two teams in the conference standings after a full round-robin, regular-season schedule."

 

[BUConn10]

Every day it seems like the P5 drifts farther away from the rest, and we are paddling as fast as we can to keep them in sight.

 

[Irishfan]

You wouldn't need an eight team playoff because the conference semis would become part of the playoff. The four power conference tournament winners would play for the national championship. Why only four power conferences? Because there's no way the Big 12 and its ten teams could have a four-team playoff, meaning the conference would be at a significant disadvantage financially compared to the ACC (with the Big Ten and SEC soon to follow in adding semis). Therefore, Texas and Oklahoma would no longer be content in the Big 12. Texas would likely leave for the Big Ten while Oklahoma would probably leave for the SEC (and since these two conferences would see OU's and UT's moves coming, I could see them supporting this change- wouldn't you support this change if you were the Big Ten and you thought this would land you U Texas?). I have a few unanswered questions like what the PAC 12 would do and how Notre Dame fits into this system (unless they join the ACC in football as its 15th member) but I think it's an interesting proposal.

I still think a 16 game season would be a problem for many athletic directors.

 

[pick6s]

I still think a 16 game season would be a problem for many athletic directors.

That's certainly a valid point though if the playoff gets expanded to eight teams it becomes a 16 game season too.

 

[Jae-VT]

You wouldn't need an eight team playoff because the conference semis would become part of the playoff. The four power conference tournament winners would play for the national championship. Why only four power conferences? Because there's no way the Big 12 and its ten teams could have a four-team playoff, meaning the conference would be at a significant disadvantage financially compared to the ACC (with the Big Ten and SEC soon to follow in adding semis). Therefore, Texas and Oklahoma would no longer be content in the Big 12. Texas would likely leave for the Big Ten while Oklahoma would probably leave for the SEC (and since these two conferences would see OU's and UT's moves coming, I could see them supporting this change- wouldn't you support this change if you were the Big Ten and you thought this would land you U Texas?). I have a few unanswered questions like what the PAC 12 would do and how Notre Dame fits into this system (unless they join the ACC in football as its 15th member) but I think it's an interesting proposal.

Forgive me for being dense, but if we get to a world of "P4" conferences with each conference composed of 16 teams, why does the number of games increase? The regular schedule would still be 12 games. The College Football Playoff is expanded to 8 games, but now, in order to qualify, you just need to be a "P4" conference division champion. Then the "P4" conference championship game is your 13th game and eliminate the playoff teams from 8 to 4. Then you have the final four games between the champions of each "P4" conference, hence the number of playoff teams goes from 4 to 2; so there is your 14th game. Then the College Football Championship game, the final game and 15. What exactly needs to change? In fact, they don't even need to change the format nor even make explicit the changes, just make it known that only the "P4" conference championship will be part of the playoff, no matter which division champion wins.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

Tempest in a teapot

Presented the option, ACC likely to retain status quo on football schedule

 

[huskymedic]

LOL... So much for that momentum:

Brett McMurphy@McMurphyESPN 9 mins ago
ACC AD’s vote to keep 8 conference games & 1 non-league Power 5 opponent. Will not go to 9 league games

 

[pick6s]

Forgive me for being dense, but if we get to a world of "P4" conferences with each conference composed of 16 teams, why does the number of games increase? The regular schedule would still be 12 games. The College Football Playoff is expanded to 8 games, but now, in order to qualify, you just need to be a "P4" conference division champion. Then the "P4" conference championship game is your 13th game and eliminate the playoff teams from 8 to 4. Then you have the final four games between the champions of each "P4" conference, hence the number of playoff teams goes from 4 to 2; so there is your 14th game. Then the College Football Championship game, the final game and 15. What exactly needs to change? In fact, they don't even need to change the format nor even make explicit the changes, just make it known that only the "P4" conference championship will be part of the playoff, no matter which division champion wins.

There's an added conference tournament semifinal game. In a 15-team league, the three division winners and a wild card play for the conference tourney title.

Reg season-12
Conf semi-13
Conf final-14
Natl semi-15
Natl final-16

 

[gioff23]

That had the momentum of a UConn game opening drive