The ACC announced that they would move to a new scheduling format that mandates eight ACC conferences games and one non-conference game against a team from one of the Five Power conferences. This is the same format as the SEC and avoids the nine-game schedule used by the Pac 12, Big Ten and Big XII. The ACC move was ultimately about protecting non-conference rivalries like Florida-Florida State or Clemson-Georgia Tech, but what I think it works out best for a program like BC.
Under the new Notre Dame agreement we will play the Irish less (basically six out of ten years). While we've done a good job of finding like-minded or traditional powers to fill the void on non-ND years, there is always a temptation to find a nice win to pad the records. But cupcake opponents don't drive ticket demand and don't bring much national respect. Now regardless of who the coach is or what our AD wants to do, we know that BC will always have one good non-conference game annually.
Finally this move accelerates the idea of BC playing more games out west. The Alumni population in California is growing and the response to the USC game was impressive. We already reach the South through our ACC schedule and the Midwest with our frequent Notre Dame and MAC games. Plus the Pac 12 tend to be the most aggressive schedulers of the major conferences. I think most would gladly sign up for a two-game series with BC.
The ACC is doing this to appease its members, appease its TV partners and strengthen its positioning for the playoff committee. It is not about BC. But it adds stability to our conference and good games to our schedule. That's good for BC fans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I couldn't disagree more. This all comes about as a result of the stupid special deal the ACC made w/ ND. Now the conference will be at a competitive disadvange w/ the selection committee vs PAC12,Big12,And Big10. Just like the Big East before it our league will rue the day that we got sucked in by those clowns in S.B.
Like coach Spurier recently said. What's so special about them, why can't they play like everyone else.
Hoib - I very much enoy bashing the arrogant pricks from ND, and agree with your Spurrier quote, but I like this 8+ 1.
Seems like it will be better competition for BC and we will trade in a MAC game for a real game.
Better opponents mean more exposure etc. That has gotta be good for BC - except if we lose and that loss amounts to lose #7 - knocking us out of a bowl eligibility.
But i am not too concerned with that.
Supposed we did not do 8 + 1, and scheduled a cupcake, as usual. And, instead of losing #7 to a BIG CONFERECNE team, we won against a small fry, and went 6-6, achieving bowl eligibility.
At 6-6, BC is headed for a crapola bowla. No thanks. Bring on a real opponent and dare to succeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.
I couldn't disagree more. This all comes about as a result of the stupid special deal the ACC made w/ ND. Now the conference will be at a competitive disadvange w/ the selection committee vs PAC12,Big12,And Big10. Just like the Big East before it our league will rue the day that we got sucked in by those clowns in S.B.
Like coach Spurier recently said. What's so special about them, why can't they play like everyone else.
Mod34b
I'm not for cupcakes, I'm for 9 league games. The ND thing is the original sin of college football. There just never seems to be an end of their special status. Until schools will stop taking their bribes, and kissing their Irish A** we'll be stuck w/ this convoluted mess of a system.
ND's special status is due to television ratings and all the meatloafs who watch them - http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9186897/nbc-extends-notre-dame-fighting-irish-football-deal-2025
"Clemson-Georgia Tech". I think you meant either Clemson-South Carolina, or Georgia-Georgia Tech.
Strength of schedule being relevant to BC directly is not that much of a worry. We're not going to be in the Top 4 at the end of year unless we are undefeated. If we are undefeated at years end, it's hard to see us not being in at least the Top 4.
For schools in the ACC that might get a look at the Top 4 with 1 loss? Sure it might be a problem, but it seems speculative. Playing a school from a power 5 conference is probably better or at least neutral than playing another ACC team from a SOS perspective anyway.
not sure how this is bad for BC. having a more national profile helps us since we recruit across the country. just b/c ND's entry into the ACC precipitated this doesn't make it an automatic negative. i'd be happy to play more Pac 12 opponents. bring em on.
The 8 + 1 power BCS game is designed to ensure that our SOS rankings won't less ground to 9 game conferences. And if this results in more ACC/SEC games (as ESPN hopes, since it owns both), then our SOS will me tad higher than otherwise would be in a 9 game ACC model.
The key, as always, is For the ACC leaders to represent us well in games against the SEC & Big 10.
I guess I should clarify what I said. Basically I can't stand ND. I agree the effects on us will be minimal, though I think it's kind of stupid to be in a league w/ teams and not play them for years, see coach Golden. Those of u who are familiar w/ my posts know I've been a BC fan for a long time, but I've been a college football fan even longer. I just can't stand the ND special treatment. My first taste of it came in 1966 in the tie.how can u tie a team w/ the same record yet be named champion? It's been going on ever since.
It shouldn't have much of an effect except to get new, interesting teams on the schedule which is a plus. We need to go undefeated or 1 loss-ACC champs to make the playoff. The one thing the 9 game schedule would bring up is inequality of home vs. away conference games. Obviously you'd alternate each year, but I could see BC losing out on the schedule quirks more often then not (i.e. consistently being a home game for the FSUs, Clemsons, etc when those schools have 4 home games). I prefer the straight 4 and 4.
I'm much more in favor of killing the divisions and playing a rotating schedule of 8 teams. Or have a set 2-4 rivalry games every year with the other 4-6 rotating.
GP11
I like your idea. How's this sound
1. 2 trad. Riv. We play every year. For us Cuse & Pitt, I think we've played them the most over the years.
2 then you play 6 teams 1 yr & 5 the next.
3 in the year u have 5 you play ND where possible, and The game counts as a league game for thr ACC participant. In the years ND can't be game 6 u have 1 or 2 secondary rivals, for us the U & Va Tech.
4 u scrap the divisions and have the top 2 teams play for the title, using an NFL tiebreaker type system.
If the SEC had used a system like this the titles games would have been better games. Last year would have created an I Ron Bowl rematch.
I see the flaw in my prior post.
To correct it the league should add 1 more team UCONN?
In this scenario you play your 2 rivals every year and everyone else every other year. All schools would then play ND once every 3 yrs. that game wouldn't count, just what the wimps want, I know, but the math works.
The champion would be determined as I suggested in prior post.
Not sure if you saw the recent announcement, but the ACC will allow teams to voluntarily schedule a 9th conference game (which will count as an OCC game) to maintain rivalries. The North Carolina schools will do it, and Miami wants to play an extra game vs a northern team.
The big 10 did this for a long time to maintain the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry.
scott
it sounds crazy to me. ACC should get another team, and neaten things up as i discussed in prior post
Post a Comment