No 9-game ACC schedule, and no surprise
Posted 10:55 a.m., May 14, 2008
Heather Dinich of ESPN.com reported yesterday that ACC athletic directors decided to nix the possibility of adding a ninth conference game to the schedule.
In other news, gas prices might be increasing.
Nothing against Dinich or her piece; it was a legit story to follow because it's something that was being discussed at the spring meetings in Amelia Island, Fla.
But it's hard for me to believe this was ever considered a remotely realistic possibility. If you're the coaches, there's very little reason to support this measure.
Last week, I wrote about how a nine-game conference schedule couldn't be good for a team like Clemson because it would all but eliminate the chance of the Tigers taking on big-time non-conference teams like Alabama, Georgia, etc.
According to Dinich, the coaches were concerned that the increase of league away games might keep more ACC teams out of bowls.
"We listened to the coaches and we've backed off the nine games," Phillips told Dinich. "It's off the table for discussion."
Said Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe in the article: "I think it's something that there's a lot of unknowns. By doing that certainly it makes scheduling easier. But at the same time, it could potentially make your schedule a little tougher and maybe hurt you down the road as far as bowl games are concerned. Because if you play an extra game, half the teams in the league will guaranteed have another loss.
"There wasn't enough interest from either side -- the athletic directors or the football coaches -- to make that change."
Supposedly the ACC's athletic directors proposed the idea because of the rising costs of scheduling non-conference games.
I'm sorry, but that rationale seems a bit greedy. With the addition of the 12th regular-season game, big-time schools have been able to add a seventh home game and reap the financial rewards. Now they're complaining that the price is too high for all the non-conference patsies they've scheduled for that 12th game?
The ACC badly needs credibility, and it isn't going to get that credibility by playing more games against itself. It's going to do it by scheduling compelling non-conference matchups, and winning its share of them. The chances of that could have been greatly diminished had the ACC bumped its conference schedule up to nine games.
Standing pat was the smart thing to do.
LW
Comments
Posted by huj on May 14 at 1:54 p.m.
What Grobe said disturbs me, regarding bowl eligibility. Fact is nowadays even losing teams are invited to bowls, so it's not like ACC teams with losing records can't get in. There's a bowl popping up seemingly every year. The bowl argument, therefore, is moot to me.
I can understand your point, Larry, about credibility. That said, the only way I'd be against a nine-game conference sked is if it was mandated by the ACC that their non-conference opponents were either 1) BCS teams, or 2) non-BCS teams in the upper-half of their conference standings. In other words, there should prohibited from playing any FCS school, especially mediocre ones like Furman, The Citadel, and SC State. If they played Appalachian State or Delaware, that would be different; those teams are at the top of that division. If the conference is not going to play an extra game, the non-conference opponents better be of a respectable quality.
But then again, I'm somewhat against a 12-team conference anyway. I much prefer the Pac-10 model. The champion is clearly defined since everyone plays each other. It's a mini-playoff.
Posted by lwilliams ( Larry Williams ) on May 14 at 4:15 p.m.
huj:
I think what Grobe and the other coaches are worried about are teams that finish with either 6-6 or 5-7 records. Playing one more ACC school means one less guaranteed victory, at least in their eyes, so that reduces the chances of bowl eligibility. Until they allow teams with losing records into bowls, I think it's a valid concern.
If they went to a nine-game conference schedule, I guarantee you the other three games on the schedule would be filled with FCS schools. If you think it's bad now, it would be 10 times worse then.
And as stated before, the attractive non-conference matchups like Georgia-Clemson, Alabama-Clemson, LSU-Virginia Tech, etc., would be virtually extinct.
LW
Post a comment