ACC Scheduling...9-game or 8+2 model?

[Jeeperaf]

ACC?s interesting alternative to potential nine-game league... | www.ajc.com


Interesting article on finer points of "9-game" in-conference vs "8+2" in-conference and x2 D1P5 schedules. Obviously its an inventory play for the budding ACC Network, but from a path to the CFB standpoint, both offer pros/cons.

My take is IF CFP starts to lean more towards conference champions (in near term) for the slots, then teams would want the 9-game path. If strength of schedule takes on a greater portion of the calculation, then the 8+2 gives teams more control over that variable.

Now, IF CFP expands pool to 8 (or more teams...very likely at next contract renewal if not sooner), then the 8+2 is going to be the way to go.

 

[CanesAreAble]

8+2 all the way

A good non-conference schedule is:

1 tune-up FCS team
1 middling G5 team
2 legit P5 teams

 

[RepTheGables]

8+2 all the way

A good non-conference schedule is:

1 tune-up FCS team
1 middling G5 team
2 legit P5 teams

This.

On a related note, our first three games are embarrassing.

 

[Jeeperaf]

The non-D1P5 teams are also affected by these scheduling models. They [non-D1P5] derive a significant source of revenue in serving as "tune up" games (App St v Mich...cough..cough). If those opportunities are reduced, then the remaining games will cost each D1P5 team more to schedule because its a zero sum game-- the money has to come from somewhere.

IF (essentially) they [D1P5] stop scheduling FCS altogether, it will fundamentally place at-risk the financial viability of numerous programs at the FCS level.

 

[Tad Footeball]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

 

[Gatorhater]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

Frigging SEC gets to count an conference loss as a OCC win.

 

[Tad Footeball]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

Frigging SEC gets to count an conference loss as a OCC win.

Yep. This is the real "rigged" system in America. The entire conference starts the year ranked therefore there are no bad losses- only good wins and it sustains the false perception of superiority all year as the media (motivated either by own self-interests or lazy group think) slurps it up and promulgates the nonsense.

 

[Jeeperaf]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

Spot on...schedule calculations are undoubtedly reworked long-term (because its very hard/impossible to change within 12 months) if/WHEN the CFP format expands to 8 or 8+...

It would seem.strength of schedule becomes much more important to the majority of teams at that point.

 

[Astcloud11]

I think every year we should play 2 OOC games against someone who averages 9+ wins over the previous 2-3 years, or someone who is in the top 4 for the conference. If you take that from last year, teams on our schedule could be

Big Ten:
1. Mich St (12-2)
1. Iowa (12-1)
1. OSU (12-1)
4. Michigan (10-3)
4. Wisconsin (10-3)
4. Northwestern (10-3)

Big 12
1. Oklahoma (12-1)
1. TCU (12-1)
3. Okla St (10-3)
3. Baylor (10-3)

SEC:
1. Bama (14-1)
2. Ole Miss (10-3)
2. UGA (10-3)
4. UF (10-4)

Pac-12
1. Stanford (12-2)
2. Utah (10-3)
3. Oregon (9-4)
3. WSU (9-4)
5. USC (8-6) They were division champs.


We could easily be praised for playing FAMU, App State, Utah, and Wisconsin.

 

[Tad Footeball]

I think every year we should play 2 OOC games against someone who averages 9+ wins over the previous 2-3 years, or someone who is in the top 4 for the conference. If you take that from last year, teams on our schedule could be

Big Ten:
1. Mich St (12-2)
1. Iowa (12-1)
1. OSU (12-1)
4. Michigan (10-3)
4. Wisconsin (10-3)
4. Northwestern (10-3)

Big 12
1. Oklahoma (12-1)
1. TCU (12-1)
3. Okla St (10-3)
3. Baylor (10-3)

SEC:
1. Bama (14-1)
2. Ole Miss (10-3)
2. UGA (10-3)
4. UF (10-4)

Pac-12
1. Stanford (12-2)
2. Utah (10-3)
3. Oregon (9-4)
3. WSU (9-4)
5. USC (8-6) They were division champs.


We could easily be praised for playing FAMU, App State, Utah, and Wisconsin.

In an ideal world I'd agree. But let's assume we're in the Playoff mix here at some point. You think the Committee will value a 1 loss Miami team that lost one of your OOC games over an undefeated conf champ or ANY 1 loss $EC team? Again, go to 8 teams in the Playoff and you'd see teams go your route. Keep it at 4 and watch the quality OOC games slowly dry up for schools that don't need the financial windfall of having them.

 

[svenben]

ACC has sent teams to the playoffs two years in a row. Both team had huge wins over ND OOC.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Do whatever stacks the deck in favor of getting ACC teams in the best position for the playoff and cashola.

 

[calinative umstudent]

8+2 is best. Plus I'd be happy if we specifically entered a little partnership with a few SEC teams. We could easily set it up so that we play UF every 3 yrs and at least one Florida School has a home game vs another Florida school. Also if we switch the home/away years for Michigan St, we can easily make it so we don't have 2 OOC games on the road per yr; This would also make our schedules alternate Home and Away every year against SEC teams. Basically we would play UF yr1, then play a home/away series with SEC team yr2/3 and repeat.

2019: VS UF, AT Rutgers, AT FIU,
2020: VS Michigan St, AT Tennessee
2021: AT Michigan St, VS Tennessee, VS Appalachian St
2022: At UF, VS Rutgers
2023: VS LSU, OTHER
2024: VS ND, AT LSU
2025: AT ND, VS UF
2026: AT Auburn, OTHER
2027: VS Auburn, OTHER
2028: AT UF, OTHER
etc....

 

[Memnon]

[TWEET]783758686716133376[/TWEET]

 

[iLoveTDs]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

Frigging SEC gets to count an conference loss as a OCC win.

Yep. This is the real "rigged" system in America. The entire conference starts the year ranked therefore there are no bad losses- only good wins and it sustains the false perception of superiority all year as the media (motivated either by own self-interests or lazy group think) slurps it up and promulgates the nonsense.

Yep. A 1 loss Miami team isn't getting into the playoff anytime soon (coastal division sucks etc). Sadly the incentive is to play **** teams.

I hope we stick to our old model though and play good OOC schedules. 1) it prepares you for tough games, and 2) it's good for recruiting/fans

 

[Hurracanes]

I hate it but under the current Playoff system I don't believe that the risk/reward of playing a legit OOC schedule is worth it (not that the $EC hasn't believed this for the last 20+ years). If we went to an 8 team Playoff with 3 at large spots (5 auto bids for conf champs w/ perhaps some restrictions) then you'd massively increase the motivation to put together strong overall schedules as the committee would probably actually not only pay lip service to the notion for spots 6,7 & 8.

Frigging SEC gets to count an conference loss as a OCC win.

Yep. This is the real "rigged" system in America. The entire conference starts the year ranked therefore there are no bad losses- only good wins and it sustains the false perception of superiority all year as the media (motivated either by own self-interests or lazy group think) slurps it up and promulgates the nonsense.

Yep. A 1 loss Miami team isn't getting into the playoff anytime soon (coastal division sucks etc). Sadly the incentive is to play **** teams.

I hope we stick to our old model though and play good OOC schedules. 1) it prepares you for tough games, and 2) it's good for recruiting/fans

With the playoffs, we have to play good opponents if we want to be taken serious. This is the advantage the SEC has on everyone. If they lose one, they are not completely out of it because they play many ranked teams. Playing cupcakes isn't Miami Hurricanes Football and it isn't smart if we want to compete.

 

[90scane]

9 would be better for the ACC as it will generate more media revenue without dropping game day revenue, IMO. The ADs likely voted it down as they feel they get more control of revenue with 8-2

 

[xbobdog]

The thing is, these things change.

The SEC luster has been getting tarnished over the last couple of years. Really, that started with FSU breaking their championship streak. The ACC has a lot of good new coaches, 6 teams in the top 25 at this point. The respect and the ranking will come as we the ACC beats the SEC in the head to heads.

In 3 years, I feel the ACC will be considered far stronger than they are now.

Yep. This is the real "rigged" system in America. The entire conference starts the year ranked therefore there are no bad losses- only good wins and it sustains the false perception of superiority all year as the media (motivated either by own self-interests or lazy group think) slurps it up and promulgates the nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Yep. A 1 loss Miami team isn't getting into the playoff anytime soon (coastal division sucks etc). Sadly the incentive is to play **** teams.

I hope we stick to our old model though and play good OOC schedules. 1) it prepares you for tough games, and 2) it's good for recruiting/fans[/QUOTE]

With the playoffs, we have to play good opponents if we want to be taken serious. This is the advantage the SEC has on everyone. If they lose one, they are not completely out of it because they play many ranked teams. Playing cupcakes isn't Miami Hurricanes Football and it isn't smart if we want to compete.[/QUOTE]

 

[xbobdog]

I don't know why it formatted like that. But I've been drinking....

 

[Jeeperaf]

ACC ADs vote to keep conference schedule at 8 games + at least 1 D1P5 opponent


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...conference-schedule-at-8-games-222928115.html