Other conferences would be wise to use Flex Protect Plus schedule
The Big Ten's new scheduling model makes a lot of sense. The other power conferences should also adopt this method for their future schedules. Virginia Tech for example should only play Virginia every year. Also playing Pitt and Wake yearly makes absolutely no sense. Some teams need three rivals every year such as Carolina playing NC State, UVa and Dook. Most others do not. Nobody wants to play Loserville. This scheduling model would also be beneficial to the SEC. Alabama only needs Auburn and Tennessee every year. Georgia needs Florida and Auburn. Texas needs OU and A&M. Tennessee needs UK, Vandy and Bama every year. OU only needs Texas every year, etc. Thoughts?
61 Replies
3y
is it could create quirks in the future games rotation. For example, if UNC has 4 protected games (Duke, NC State, Wake, and UVA), then UNC may not get to play Clemson, FSU, and Miami as many times as say Louisville who could have 0 protected games like Penn State. Given that not every school has the same value in terms of game revenue for the home team, I'm curious to see if some Big Ten schools eventually voice concerns because they don't get to play the big name schools as frequently as they did when the Big Ten used divisions.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
3y
VT-Miami games as rivalry games. Even if VT's only protected game was against UVA, it would still mean that VT ends up playing Wake more frequently than GT and Miami because of the quirks in the future rotation schedule. What I mean by "quirk" is that when it is VT's turn to play GT in its rotation, the game could easily be bumped to make room for either 1 of GT's protected game or another opponent that got bumped in a prior year for the same reasons. It is even possible that GT could get bumped from playing another opponent (i.e. UNC) one season which would impact GT's future rotation schedule and any future conference opponent's schedule too. Basically it creates 1 giant domino effect.
(In response to this post by Hokie1992)
3y
Also need 9 conference games. Stupid that ACC doesn’t already have it.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
The problem with 9 conference games is it makes it difficult to schedule quality OOC games in years a team will play 5 away conference games. Financially most teams have to schedule 7 home games every year or at least limit the number of times they end up playing 6 away games in a season.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
3y
UNC -> UVA and NCSU
UVA -> VT and UNC
VT -> UVA (and possibly Miami or WVU if they joined)
FSU -> MIAMI
This was brilliant on the part of the Big 10, and idiotic on the ACC.
It's bad enough VT is not playing Miami, but forcing VT to consume 25% of their schedule with Pitt and WF just makes for bad economics.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
M
Mercury
3y
Acc is a collaborative conference- no dictator- trouble was no one other uva wanted vt
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
3y
“Yeah, collaborative, that’s what we were”
(In response to this post by Mercury)
I wish that was our only protected game then.
Would have loved to have had Miami and Georgia Tech as our other two. But if they are going to stick us with Pitt and Wake, I'd rather just have one rival, and play everyone else more often.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
3y
they should play every year.
NC State: UNC, Wake, Duke, and Clemson (aka the Textile Bowl)
VT: UVA, Miami, and GT
UVA: UNC, Duke (a somewhat TIC inclusion depending on which Wahoo fan you talk to), and VT
Then there are some rivalries that develop for competitive reasons similar to how the Clemson-FSU rivalry developed because both programs had a Bowden as their respective HCs until the competitive reasons took root. For example, BC has developed a 'rivalry' with Clemson to the point where the teams now play for a trophy (O'Rourke–McFadden Trophy). If the ACC decides to keep the Clemson-FSU rivalry, then I could see Clemson and BC say they want to keep their rivalry too. Assuming the ACC agreed, then Clemson could have 4 protected games too; NC State, GT, FSU, and BC.
I'm not opposed to limiting it to a specific number. I do think though that if a conference is going to limit it, then it should be the same number for every member. Otherwise, a conference opens the door for a perception of showing favoritism towards certain schools or creating too many unbalanced schedules WRT home game revenue.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
IMO, the only team that needs 3 is UNC. And I'd be glad to make an
exception for the Tarheels in this case. It is for the overall good of the conference.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
rivalry in football doesn't carry the same value it does in basketball or men's lacrosse (somewhat TIC with the lacrosse reference). Now if Duke was consistently good in football as it is in basketball, then I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the exception. However, that isn't the case so the Duke-UNC football may be no different than the NC State-Wake which has been played consecutively since 1910. Unfortunately, that streak will end at some point because NC State chose to be paired with Duke, which is another of NC State's rivals, instead of Wake for whatever reason.
For the most part I don't have a strong opinion on which ACC rivalries should or shouldn't be protected. I tend to defer to the opinions of the schools. However, I will say that the ACC's recent decision is a head scratcher in that it is willing to sacrifice some annual rivalry games so teams can play each other more frequently even though rivalry games is the foundation for building a passionate fan base. If the ACC truly wanted to protect as many rivalries as possible, then it wouldn't surprise me if the division model (with a mini realignment) would be the better way to go.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling the ACC will stick with this format and not make any tweaks to the protected games when it is time to start the next cycle. If the ACC does make any tweaks to it, then 1 of the changes (maybe the only change) would be to ensure the 4 NC schools play each other every year plus still protect 1 non-NC rivalry for each of the 4 schools; UNC-UVA, NC State-Clemson, Duke-UVA (I kid...I think), and Wake-VT (Fredo Part Deux?). In all seriousness, I will be curious to see just how 'happy' the 14 football schools will be at the end of the first cycle vs. cracks start to form because more schools are disgruntled about sacrificing rivalries that they deem to be 'important.'
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
M
Mercury
3y
Vt gets the easier winnable schedule and can back door to acc championship game while Miami fsu Clemson and unc? Kill each other.
Bottom line vt needs to play us again the world mentality . We were not wanted in the acc and entered and dominated. We were tough hit hard and our Roudy fans invaded the bastions of acc blue bloods and knocked the crap out of them.
We should not care to be marketed as acc blue bloods with tea and crumpets but the bad guys who are going to the game and frankly knock the crap out of the opponent and quit saying anything about happy to be in the acc but happy to be vt who dominate the opponent on the field and fill the away venues
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
game. I would counter that point by saying that rivalry games are the foundation (or building blocks) for a conference to build a high level of passion among its fan bases in a particular sport. Given that the ACC currently has a PR problem in football, the ACC should want to retain the annual playing of as many rivalry games as possible. Outside Miami's AD, I think most people would agree that Miami-VT is a rivalry that goes back to the Big East days. There are other rivalry games that are being lost because of this decision. I'm not sure the ACC will be in a better shape because of this sacrifice.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
3y
a VT argument. While I understand that were ae in "conference realignment" discussions, except for a few of the bluebloods, a school can not control which conference they are in.
The only way to be a top school in your athletic conference, is to win. There are no television points for rubbing elbows academically, socially, or appearing to be above the fray. The Ivy league can have that, the rest of us are here for the sports. people in the stands, and casual fans watching on TV can only be had by winning - it's really all that matters, and you can do that no matter if your in the ACC, Big East, or any other conference.
This is about VT, not the ACC.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
going to build its brand winning games against Wake or Pitt because the majority of fan base doesn't really care about beating those teams. Just like most Hokie fans don't really care about beating BC (aka Fredo). They do care about VT beating its ACC rivals though which is probably true for the fan bases of the other 13 ACC football schools. Hence my point about a conference wanting to maximize the number of annual rivalry games teams play during a season because both the conference and its members benefit from this strategy. Also, why I am saying rivalry games are the foundation for a program to build its national brand. That is how the P2 conferences and its members build their brands over the years. If it ain't broke, then why try to fix it?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
3y
We need more lacrosse teams in the conf. VT should have added it a long time ago.
The Big 10 created their whole lacrosse conference to put it on their network.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
players a salary, then it will be interesting to see what role (if any) Title IX plays in that world. If the labor laws and/or Title IX don't force the schools offer similar opportunities to the women's teams, then it could open the door for schools to add additional men's sports and remain Title IX compliant.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
3y
to deal with at that point.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
I think UNC-Duke should be protected.
I love it when the one team wins and goes over and grabs the Victory Bell and paints it.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
O'Rourke-McFadden Trophy. However, you don't think that rivalry should be protect because it happens to involve BC and Clemson. My point is if a conference is going to have a flex schedule where everyone doesn't have the same number of protected games, then the list should be left up to the individual schools.
If School A wants Team B on the list and Team B doesn't feel the same way about Team A, then let history be the deciding factor on whether to include it on the list or not. For example, if Minn wants Michigan on its list and Michigan doesn't feel the same way, then history would probably be added to the list (and Michigan would just have to suck it up) because both teams have played for the Little Brown Jug 104 times since 1892. The same thing could probably be said for the Illinibuck Trophy given that Illinois and Ohio State have played for it 103 times since 1902. Likewise, Indiana and Michigan State have been playing for the Old Brass Spittoon Trophy 69 times since 1950. Most people wouldn't view the Indiana-Michigan State rivalry as an important enough rivalry to protect. However, I suspect both schools would disagree with those people given that they were paired as protected cross-division rivals when the Big Ten went to divisions in 2011. The irony in the Big Ten's decision to switch to this format is it felt the UMD-Rutgers rivalry was worthy enough to be protected even though most people would agree there is no history to support the decision.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Moral of the story: play more conference games.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
depending on the person's point of view. Another potential moral that comes to mind is that conferences and networks probably shouldn't decide who is or isn't a team's rivals and whether a rivalry is worthy enough to be protected or not.
I think most people would agree that the Clemson-FSU rivalry didn't really come about until both schools decided to have a Bowden as their HC. It also helped that both programs eventually became good/great at that time. Now that neither program has a Bowden for a HC and FSU seems to have pulled a Nebraska, it is probably reasonable to raise the question on whether the rivalry is still worth protecting or not especially when the conference appears willing to sacrifice rivalries that have a much longer history than the Clemson-FSU rivalry. It is even likely that the Clemson-FSU rivalry is no different than the UNC-VT rivalry in that it only truly exists when both programs are competing against each other for division or conference titles.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
PSU has no rivals, so they are free to play every team regularly.
OSU has one rival in Michigan
Michigan has two rivals in Michigan State and OSU.
UCLA has one rival in USC
This is brilliant, as you are maximizing your revenue and not forcing bad inventory. VT vs Wake Forest, a completely forced matchup, is going to be relegated to ESPN3. VT vs Pitt is not attractive either. We would be much better off rotating through 2 other teams more regularly.
As far as UNC, it's really just UVA and NCSU. Wake Forest is not that important a rivalry it needs to be played yearly, and Duke verse UNC in football doesn't have nearly the allure as basketball
** Edited by jesuisvtguy at 6/9/2023, 8:42:41 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
S
Stech
3y
and probably the only place. Bet the house on it!!! 🦃😎
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3y
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
We are not viewed as a rival to them
(In response to this post by UVa 2002)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
They got lucky those seven times...lol
(In response to this post by reestuart)
But based on who Miami got stuck with, they screwed themselves IF
they did indeed ask to drop VT.
People keep repeating this claim about UM, but I'm not sure it is true. But whoever made the call, or failed to fight for the series, they screwed up and and have proven to be unserious about football. Fire-able offense IMO. I'm still hot about it.
BTW, UVa was done dirty by this 3-5-5 schedule as well. It's down right disrespectful to an old-order school like Virginia. This schedule would have been a good time to put/keep some old time ACC series back together. But no.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/9/2023, 12:11:58 PM
(In response to this post by UVa 2002)
When I suggested this in the past, some people argued against it saying
it would make the schedule unfair competitively. But I figure that we are all conference members and should presume to be equal. For example, we have Wake and Pitt. annually now. Sounds easy. But both have been very good over the last several years.
And good point on Louisville. No one wants to have them as an annual game, so why force it on, say, UVa? And why force it on Louisville? In fact, UL as a new member probably wants to get around to play its new mates more often. And I've always felt the same way for Tech, and we've been in the league 20 years now.
I also think VT should be playing Miami every year. But if others don't agree, I'd be fine with dropping the series in exchanging for not having to play Pitt and Wake every year.
Games that should be protected:
UVa-VT
UNC-Duke
UNC-UVa
UNC-NCState
FSU-Miami
NCState-Clemson
Pitt-Syracuse
Everything else is not an absolute must, but might be nice to keep:
VT-Miami
FSU-Clemson
GT-Duke
Syracuse-BC
GT-VT
GT-Clemson
and several more maybe
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
3y
Nobody at NSCU gets extra excited to play WF. Nobody at Miami gets extra excited to play BC. Rivalries are games you really don't want to lose because you have a little extra "hate" for your opponent.
When VT loses to UVA or WVU it is far more painful for most of the fan base than if VT loses to WF or Pitt.
(In response to this post by hokieball)
3y
they have played each other consecutively since 1910. It may even be the second longest consecutive annual game behind the UNC-UVA game or third longest if Auburn-UGA is the second longest.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
I'd be fine with those, too.
(In response to this post by hokieball)
3y
You want to avoid a "high value" team playing a "low value" team. If you can put two low value teams together, and it fits regionally, then that is how you maximize your inventory. That means PSU is not forced to play Rutgers or Maryland every year... thus they will cycle with other teams more frequently.
(In response to this post by Lakeridgehokie)
An absolute must 😭
In all seriousness, let's face it. The only reason that game is protected is that is one less time everyone else has to play them.
The rest of the B1G looks at those two teams like the ACC looks at Louisville, except probably worse.
The B1G said that they were inviting them to help Penn State. But I live in PA, about the same distance from the three campuses. And no one I know here gets fired up for Rutgers and Maryland. They'd much rather play any of the original Big Ten schools or Nebraska.
(In response to this post by Lakeridgehokie)
3y
ACC and SEC should absolutely model this. Good in so many ways. The ACC is continually lethargic in its thinking. Absolutely no forward looking vision from a leadership perspective. As Wayne Gretzky once said (paraphrasing), “Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is or has been”.
Believe 9 conference games is the way to go too (especially with 14+ members in a conference and no divisions).
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
3y
Several years ago the ACC tried to get approval to have a conference championship game without divisions, and they got voted down - despite the Big12 getting approval since at least every team played each other. I think the other conferences were concerned it could propel the ACC to poach teams like Notre Dame, Texas, etc since it would have given a ton of scheduling flexibility.
Eventually, this rule of divisions was dissolved when the Big10 and SEC expanded. The ACC had the foresight to scrap divisions and create some dedicated rivals, but I feel they completely whiffed when they forced VT to play Pitt and WF yearly. With that move they took a step backwards in maximizing their assets.
** Edited by jesuisvtguy at 6/9/2023, 8:59:48 PM
** Edited by jesuisvtguy at 6/9/2023, 9:00:31 PM
(In response to this post by 133966Hokie)
3y
Could you imagine this:
Wvu, Uva and Wake over
Pitt , Uva and wake
Then throw in these six fir two years
Miami
Clemson
State
BC
Pitt
Ville
Then next two years
Unc
Duke
FSU
Cuse
Cincinnati
Gt
Way better than now. But do to feel desire of 8 u won’t see it.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
3y
UCONN will find a way to pay a good coaching staff, and start winning football games. Guess what, they won't be available either.
The 12 is vetting Memphis - I don't like the move, but if the SEC and BIG poach teams from the ACC (it's coming), then the teams left will be looking around at the G5's, and you'll be salivating for East Carolina, App. State, USF, and some others, and it will water down the basketball branding.
If/when that all plays out, landing spots may have dried up in the 12.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
H
hokieZ71
3y
What are you gonna do when the B1G or SEC takes Kansas? (Because it’s coming). Oh, and ESPN starts hyping the SEC as the best hoops conference while Fox hypes the B1G? Even though you’re like “But Baylor?! (Minus all the murders and general criminal activity) Jamie Dixon?! Octagon of Doom?!”
And then OU stops scheduling OkState in football when the SEC goes to 9 games? And aTm and Texas play zero other schools from Texas outside Rice and UTEP? What will you say then? “UConn just hired a solid football coach?! UCF!! They were National Champs a few years ago…kinda…but not really! Gundy’s a man! He’s 60!”
And if you think Yormark would turn down a VA, GA, PA or NC public school and actually establish an East Coast presence in the Big XII, you must not think too highly of him. Unless you think WVU, UCF and Cincinnati is the East Coast…
Oh and remember when Colorado turned the Big XII down? You taking them back?
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 6/10/2023, 10:59:59 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
KU is not going to the SEC. They will not follow Texas anywhere, but if they get an invite, it will be to the BIG.
They can hype the conferences all they want, after all, they have made an investment - but for now, the Big12 is the ONLY conference that is broadcast by both FOX and ESPN.
I don't even know where to put that second paragraph. It sounds like more of the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind then an analysis of the conference. I will say this however, not matter what you think of those schools, they commanded quite the media contract, and from what I've read, the viewership of the current 12 teams after OUT leaves, are trending up, not down.
I don't think for one second that the 12 would turn down any schools in the ACC if they ever became available. The goal should be to build a conference that can compete for titles, and one that people want to watch. The PAC and the ACC seem to be pretty picky about their "reputation" or something, and it will cost them. Now that OUT is out of the picture, the Big12 is out there taking risks. Either the Big12 will be reduced to obscurity, or they will emerge as part of a P3. It's very risky.
The Big12's mantra should be, "When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose"
All in fun my friend, as things are changing. I used to be old school, but it is what it is. The buzz in this neck of the woods is not doom and gloom, or fear, or even trying to get invited to the popular kids party. After going through all that, we have decided to have our own party, and it appears that all of the kids that are not popular are going to be invited.
What else is the 12 going to do?
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
LOL. You should have stopped at the subject line.
The subject line is a bit snarky for an outsider, but not wrong. But FWIW, WVU to the ACC has been a hot topic in the ACC long before WVU went to the BigXII, and long before you wandered onto this board.
But the rest of the post is pure nonsense.
It is based on the premise that there is still going to be an ACC if the SEC or B1G take a bunch of our teams. The ACC will be dead as we know it if that occurs. And not a single person on this board (or ACC leadership) will say, "had we only taken UConn, WVU and Cincinnati." And I'm not sure exactly when UConn became the must-have team, the almighty savior of conferences.
And then there's this: "If/when that all plays out, landing spots may have dried up in the 12." I mean, what a joke. How many "spots" are there? From my vantage point, "The 12" is looking to add just about everyone. The entire Pac-12 (minus Wazzu and the Beavs, and some are out there looking to take them as well), Fresno, SDSU, USF, almighty UConn, Memphis, and so on. Hell, Yormark is probably close to inviting the entire nation-state of Mexico. But the bottom line is this, if the leftover schools in the event of an ACC implosion are better than what you've got, you will take them. If not, you won't. I can't see the Big 12 saying, "Yeah, sorry Virginia Tech and North Carolina State, no room in the inn." Any other talk is pure hyperbole, fear-mongering and propaganda.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
The Big12 as it stands today is just a shell of it's former self, but somehow, they pulled together and got a very competitive media deal. We lived through our conference collapsing, and survived.
The ACC as it stands now is a superior athletic conference then the Big12, but relying on the GOR to keep it together in the current environment, only buys time for those that will not be invited to the BIG or SEC.
Winter is coming, but the idea some think the ACC will not survive surprises me. There may or may not be some North east schools that end up in the Big12, hell, many on this board are ready to throw Cuse and Louisville of the bus as we speak, and there is still chatter of picking up WVU and Cincy - it just doesn't make sense to me.
Say 4 schools being poached from those two conferences, and there are 10 left. It's pretty likely from where I'm sitting, and it begs the question, who will the ACC add? What moves can the ACC make right here and now to have the inventory if that were to happen?
It's just a different perspective of aa guy that thought his school was going to get invited to the P2, and didn't. Life didn't end, and they pulled a conference out of their backside that actually looks like it's going to be a LOT of fun, with parity and growth.
VT is caught up in the here and now, and they will land on their feet no matter which conference they end up in, I'm just saying that you can hope for the best, but make sure you plan for the worst.
The top programs in the Big12 and PAC actually prevented expansion, then left for greener pastures. The middle and lower teams in the ACC need to stand up and be counted now, or it might be too late.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
years instead of what the ACC has had. I guess it will be slightly better, but the 8 game schedule and protected matchups really screw things up. Loserville will have been in the ACC for 10 years before visiting VT. That's stupid.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
V
Vippie1
3y
only 3-4 total games are REAL historic rivalries and even those should probably be played as OOCs when necessary
UVa-VT
FSU-Miami
UNC and either Duke or NCSU
Maybe UVA-UNC
Insane but everyone else loves it. We could have a much more varied schedule but instead Wake and Pitt.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
I would respect long-standing series.
Tech-Miami have played 33 straight years over two conferences. It should be preserved if both parties agree.
Duke-GT has been played every year since 1937. Ditto.
And UNC-UVa is more important to the ACC than even UVa-VT as the oldest rivalry in the South. But both must be protected.
To me, any pairing that the ACC split up by divisions, and didn't have as a crossover game, should NOT be a protected game. Totally stupid. Like, GTFOH with VT-Wake.
I would keep Pitt-Syracuse too since they have played each other every year since their eastern independent years.
But yeah, only UNC needs three rivals. Open the schedule, let the teams with no rivals run free.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/9/2023, 11:48:46 AM
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
3y
just think the cost (of not being able to play all the other schools as regularly as possible) outweighs the benefit. It makes a mockery of what a conference is supposed to be. And again there is nothing to stop occasionally scheduling those games as OOC if they are really that important to the parties.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Fair enough. I would also argue that we should be playing MORE conference
games. I would say 10, 5 home/away. That alone would go along way to fixing this issue. Plus, it would be far more interesting and competitive.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
3y
kept the divisions and 1 protected cross-division game (assuming the ACC was bright enough to follow the formula I created and posted on here a couple of times).
6 division games
1 protected cross-division game
3 rotating cross-division games (remaining 6 teams in the other division divided up into 2 groups of 3 that rotates every 2 years)
10 total conference games
By using this formula the ACC could ensure that the cycle is completed in 4 years because a team would get to play everyone home and away at least 1 time within that time period. It would have given the ACC the perfect opportunity to re-align the divisions to ensure everyone is paired up with their top rival or a 'natural rival' in the case of L'ville and Pitt (aka the Ohio River Rivalry) because Syracuse would be paired with BC which would mean VT is paired with UVA.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)