• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACC Network to be Based in Connecticut, not Charlotte

DiegoTiger said:
Well, the most obvious reason why it is infinitely better is another conference game guarantees 7 more losses for ACC teams. The middle of the ACC is not as bad as is perceived, but additional guaranteed losses will help fuel that perception.

Yeah, conferences should play each other more, but we are in a new age, and there are much more important things than the Big Four all playing each other. Take, this first weekend for example....

Clemson vs Auburn
VT vs Tennessee

Both of those matchups provide more exposure, and offer much greater rewards with a potential victory, than any ACC team could in the same situation.

As a conference, the ACC gains nothing if that game is VT vs Clemson instead.
Click to expand...

I agree that that's a positive reason; good argument. Selfishly as a Wake fan I'd rather have 9 just to play more conference teams.
 
I agree with Lohengrin, especially if that means we get to play Carolina every year.
 
Well said, Diego. Very well said. Nine games also likely results in fewer bowl games for ACC teams.
 
Going to an 8-2 schedule is fine with me. But I do think most of the ACC schools would need a permanent scheduling partner so they're not all looking for 2 P5 games every year. The SEC-ACC rivalries account for four. Notre Dame helps some. Hopefully, Wake and UNC can work out a deal if it comes to that.
 
Finding P5 opponents won't be a challenge.
 
PhDeac said:
Well said, Diego. Very well said. Nine games also likely results in fewer bowl games for ACC teams.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy this part of it, when we're arguably the weakest P5 conference out there right now. Either us or the B1G
 
It guarantees 7 additional ACC losses.
 
A lot of that depends on how many conference games the other conferences are playing. If all go to nine (and I don't know who is or isn't, if any) then it's a wash.
 
The only proposals being discussed here are 8 conf and 2 P5 non-conf and 9 conf and 1 P5 non-conf. If it's 8 conf and less than 2 non-confs, then I agree it helps everyone's bowl chances.

But said before and will say again, as a fan I'd rather play an additional conference game or a P5 opponent than play in whatever shitty bowl we'd make at 6-6
 
PhDeac said:
Finding P5 opponents won't be a challenge.
Click to expand...

The PAC 12, Big XII and Big Ten all play nine conference games. Most of the schools in the SEC prefer to only play one P5 non-conference game per year.

If the entire ACC minus FSU, Clemson, GT and Louisville is looking for 2 P5 per year then that will be a significant issue.
 
I hope that they set a system where a player will play every ACC team during his career. The old plan had us play a home and home against a coastal team, but would miss playing 2 or 3 other teams over their five year career.
 
We don't go to Pitt until 2023! And still yet to play them period, and won't until 2018
 
WakeForestRanger said:
The PAC 12, Big XII and Big Ten all play nine conference games. Most of the schools in the SEC prefer to only play one P5 non-conference game per year.

If the entire ACC minus FSU, Clemson, GT and Louisville is looking for 2 P5 per year then that will be a significant issue.
Click to expand...

So we won't be allowed to stay in the ACC if we don't have 2 P5 opponents?

Cmon.

We try to get 2 and if we can't, the rule will be bent. There are no consequences.
 
Well, if three other P5 conferences are already playing 9 conf games, we'd make 4. The pressure would be on the SEC and they'd go to 9 too. I'm thinking 9 is very preferable to 8 + 2. To me at least. We aren't Clemson or FSU. It means more to me to play more of the Coastal Division AND have them count as ACC games.
 
Lohengrin said:
A lot of that depends on how many conference games the other conferences are playing. If all go to nine (and I don't know who is or isn't, if any) then it's a wash.
Click to expand...

Pac, Big 12, and Big 10 are all at 9 games. Pac coaches are already railing against it, and Big 12 would love to drop to 8 conference games if they expand.

I absolutely get the desire to play another team within the ACC, especially if that's UNC for Wake. Expansion is killing college football by killing regional rivalries. Having said that, this is the era we are in now. Don't see Pitt for 12 years? Unimportant and irrelevant. We aren't the SEC or the Big 10 with 2-3 huge names that everyone wants and needs to play. Nobody in America, including North Carolina and Pittsburgh care if Wake and Pitt play, or Pitt and Clemson for that matter. Let Pitt play WVU, PSU, UMD and hell ND. Missing conference members becomes more of an issue when your elites are Bama, OSU, Michigan, SC etc..

The ACC needs to maximize it's potential and increase demand for its media rights. We do that with an 8+2, scheduling OOC SEC and Big 10, and when possible, putting those games on the ACCN.
 
PhDeac said:
So we won't be allowed to stay in the ACC if we don't have 2 P5 opponents?

Cmon.

We try to get 2 and if we can't, the rule will be bent. There are no consequences.
Click to expand...

Since it was an ESPN stipulation for the ACC Network, I would assume there would be a financial penalty if the member schools fail to get the requisite games for the contract.

I've not seen the contract so I don't know that for sure, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.
 
And I'm sure ESPN would use their clout to make some matchups happen. And even if not, Wake is an easy choice for teams looking for a beatable P5. Hopefully not for long.
 
Would ND be the 9th conf game plus a coastal or would we have Duke (traditional opponent) and 2 coastal teams? Then we could schedule (1) P5, (1) mid major (Sun Belt, C-USA, AAC),(1) FCS. In other words, will ND be a conf game or a P5 game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top