PonyFans.com

Interesting, I think.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... -acc-teams

Not good news for teams outside the P5 conferneces. Also, a really stupid idea in general.

Imagine if, say, Florida and Georgia were atop the SEC East. Florida had beaten Georgia head-to-head but lost to LSU. Georgia was otherwise undefeated in conference play. So they both have one SEC loss, but UF wins head-to-head tiebreaker. But then what if UF had lost to Arkansas in an "out of conference" game? Florida still takes the SEC East crown and goes to Atlanta, but it just creates the potential for a bizarre set of circumstances and potentially undesirable outcomes. This is an all around stupid idea, but if there's more money to be made from it, I expect it to be implemented.

OOC games should be a way to spread your brand and see how you match up with other conferences IMO

East Coast Mustang wrote:Not good news for teams outside the P5 conferneces. Also, a really stupid idea in general.

Imagine if, say, Florida and Georgia were atop the SEC East. Florida had beaten Georgia head-to-head but lost to LSU. Georgia was otherwise undefeated in conference play. So they both have one SEC loss, but UF wins head-to-head tiebreaker. But then what if UF had lost to Arkansas in an "out of conference" game? Florida still takes the SEC East crown and goes to Atlanta, but it just creates the potential for a bizarre set of circumstances and potentially undesirable outcomes. This is an all around stupid idea, but if there's more money to be made from it, I expect it to be implemented.

OOC games should be a way to spread your brand and see how you match up with other conferences IMO

I think these kinds of games would just be considered as strictly OOC. An LSU loss to Florida in the non-con has no bearing on the conference rankings and schedule. They just pretend Florida is another conference for the purposes of that game.

That said, I don't really see much benefit for this kind of set up. Because you create a possibility of teams rematching in the conference finals, even if they didn't play in the conference schedule.

Baylorbears11 wrote:I think these kinds of games would just be considered as strictly OOC. An LSU loss to Florida in the non-con has no bearing on the conference rankings and schedule. They just pretend Florida is another conference for the purposes of that game.

Right, it would just be weird if a team is only said to have one "SEC loss" when in reality they'd lost to two SEC teams that season

Baylorbears11 wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:Not good news for teams outside the P5 conferneces. Also, a really stupid idea in general.

Imagine if, say, Florida and Georgia were atop the SEC East. Florida had beaten Georgia head-to-head but lost to LSU. Georgia was otherwise undefeated in conference play. So they both have one SEC loss, but UF wins head-to-head tiebreaker. But then what if UF had lost to Arkansas in an "out of conference" game? Florida still takes the SEC East crown and goes to Atlanta, but it just creates the potential for a bizarre set of circumstances and potentially undesirable outcomes. This is an all around stupid idea, but if there's more money to be made from it, I expect it to be implemented.

OOC games should be a way to spread your brand and see how you match up with other conferences IMO

I think these kinds of games would just be considered as strictly OOC. An LSU loss to Florida in the non-con has no bearing on the conference rankings and schedule. They just pretend Florida is another conference for the purposes of that game.

That said, I don't really see much benefit for this kind of set up. Because you create a possibility of teams rematching in the conference finals, even if they didn't play in the conference schedule.

If SMU and TCU were in the same 15-team league but in separate divisions, and had already been told they would not play each other in-conference in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, it would be stupid of them to consider scheduling each other outside the conference schedule? That's exactly the situation Duke and NC State are in, almost right down to the history of the rivalry (every year from 1924 until ACC expansion screwed it up) and the distance between the schools (24 miles). If they do schedule each other as a non-conference matchup, it will not be stupid.

Sounds like ACC needs crossover games like the SEC.

Dukie wrote:

Baylorbears11 wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:Not good news for teams outside the P5 conferneces. Also, a really stupid idea in general.

Imagine if, say, Florida and Georgia were atop the SEC East. Florida had beaten Georgia head-to-head but lost to LSU. Georgia was otherwise undefeated in conference play. So they both have one SEC loss, but UF wins head-to-head tiebreaker. But then what if UF had lost to Arkansas in an "out of conference" game? Florida still takes the SEC East crown and goes to Atlanta, but it just creates the potential for a bizarre set of circumstances and potentially undesirable outcomes. This is an all around stupid idea, but if there's more money to be made from it, I expect it to be implemented.

OOC games should be a way to spread your brand and see how you match up with other conferences IMO

I think these kinds of games would just be considered as strictly OOC. An LSU loss to Florida in the non-con has no bearing on the conference rankings and schedule. They just pretend Florida is another conference for the purposes of that game.

That said, I don't really see much benefit for this kind of set up. Because you create a possibility of teams rematching in the conference finals, even if they didn't play in the conference schedule.

If SMU and TCU were in the same 15-team league but in separate divisions, and had already been told they would not play each other in-conference in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, it would be stupid of them to consider scheduling each other outside the conference schedule? That's exactly the situation Duke and NC State are in, almost right down to the history of the rivalry (every year from 1924 until ACC expansion screwed it up) and the distance between the schools (24 miles). If they do schedule each other as a non-conference matchup, it will not be stupid.

No, it will be stupid. As noted above when teams A and B tie for a division championship and team B wins on a tiebreaker but team B lost a non-conference game against a conference team and team A won a non-conference game against a conference team, Team A supporters will gripe and unaffiliated people will laugh.

If it was so important for the teams to play each other every year they should have either added conference games to make that possible or not expanded the conference in a way that makes it impractical.

Grant Carter wrote:

Dukie wrote:

Baylorbears11 wrote:I think these kinds of games would just be considered as strictly OOC. An LSU loss to Florida in the non-con has no bearing on the conference rankings and schedule. They just pretend Florida is another conference for the purposes of that game.

That said, I don't really see much benefit for this kind of set up. Because you create a possibility of teams rematching in the conference finals, even if they didn't play in the conference schedule.

If SMU and TCU were in the same 15-team league but in separate divisions, and had already been told they would not play each other in-conference in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, it would be stupid of them to consider scheduling each other outside the conference schedule? That's exactly the situation Duke and NC State are in, almost right down to the history of the rivalry (every year from 1924 until ACC expansion screwed it up) and the distance between the schools (24 miles). If they do schedule each other as a non-conference matchup, it will not be stupid.

No, it will be stupid. As noted above when teams A and B tie for a division championship and team B wins on a tiebreaker but team B lost a non-conference game against a conference team and team A won a non-conference game against a conference team, Team A supporters will gripe and unaffiliated people will laugh.

If it was so important for the teams to play each other every year they should have either added conference games to make that possible or not expanded the conference in a way that makes it impractical.

Two schools can't control scheduling for an entire conference. If anything is stupid, conference bloat is stupid. But trying workarounds like this is a rational response.

ECM, the ACC already has a single crossover game; but Duke, Wake, State and UNC are a quartet of historical rivalries and would need two crossovers to make their full series work. But again, those four schools can't force it on the rest of the conference, and no one else has a comparable set of multiple close rivals.

P5 conferences are shredding pseudo-geographic conferences indiscriminately and teams are jumping and clinging to them without giving it a second thought so that they don't get left behind. Talk about both parties wanting their cake, and to eat it too.

Yep, that is what happens in reallignment. I am glad that they are feeling the weight of their own greed. I am sorry that Duke, Wake, State and UNC maybe be losing their historical rivalries. "Tough Titty said the Kitty, but the Milk is still good."

The $20 Million per year per school is enough to make up for the loss of those rivalries...don't feel bad for them...because they don't either

smusportspage wrote:Yep, that is what happens in reallignment. I am glad that they are feeling the weight of their own greed. I am sorry that Duke, Wake, State and UNC maybe be losing their historical rivalries. "Tough Titty said the Kitty, but the Milk is still good."

Nobody asked anyone to feel sorry for these schools. (But FYI, Duke has voted against ACC expansion.) We're just debating whether moving lost rivalries to non conference as a last resort is stupid. It isn't.

I've always thought this would be a good idea in the 4x16 configuration that might allow big boy football to become more regionalized at the conference "division" level. This starts with the SEC trying to preserve rivalries like Auburn vs Georgia and Tennessee vs Alabama where those schools could continue playing each other without jeopardizing their chances of winning their division and competing for the national championship in what effectively becomes an 8 team playoff. Let's just get on with it and "fix" this mess so West Virginia doesn't have to play Texas schools and Missouri doesn't play with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, etc...

Dukie wrote:

smusportspage wrote:Yep, that is what happens in reallignment. I am glad that they are feeling the weight of their own greed. I am sorry that Duke, Wake, State and UNC maybe be losing their historical rivalries. "Tough Titty said the Kitty, but the Milk is still good."

Nobody asked anyone to feel sorry for these schools. (But FYI, Duke has voted against ACC expansion.) We're just debating whether moving lost rivalries to non conference as a last resort is stupid. It isn't.

It is stupid. If it is done it will be widely mocked. If ever a team wins a division but would not have won the division if non-conference games against conference opponents were counted in conference standings then it will be mocked even more strongly.