Is the ACC going to stay at 8 or move to 9 conference games?
Personally I think the ACC should move to 9 at least partially.
Latest article on this topic.
____________________
This is also a math problem. If the ACC stays at eight, it needs 34 nonconference games against P4 opponents to reach Phillips’s threshold. Nine or 10 are currently baked in annually: the Notre Dame games plus annual rivalries Florida State–Florida, Clemson–South Carolina, Georgia Tech–Georgia and Louisville–Kentucky. It’s hard to find willing partners to schedule 24 more, especially now that the SEC just took away 16 scheduling opportunities by going to a ninth conference game.
So the best solution would appear to be bulking up schedules from within, even if it creates some complications. For a conference that is already struggling to prove its depth (see below), staying at eight games is an invitation to be further marginalized by the rest of the P4.
Link:
Pat Forde
75 Replies
H
HOO86
10mo
And if the ACC decides to exclude Clemson, GT, FSU, and Louisville from that I'm good with it still. They have the annual SEC rival game. But the rest don't have that today. UVA scheduled NCState out of conference this year for instance. We're technically playing 9 conference games.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
10mo
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
10mo
We're seeing it more now. UVA just did it with NC State this year. UNC has done it with Wake Forest. If it gets harder to schedule other P4 due to those leagues going to 9, then we may need to do it with other conference members to get that 9th P4 game since the 4 with SEC rivals will be scheduling those.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
UVa and Maryland every year. Tobacco Road prob has hard time doing that.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
S
Stech
10mo
just did. That would solve the problem. Everyone must do 10 P4 games, but 2 can be OOC, whether it’s someone else in the conference or another P4 team.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
10mo
It accomplishes the same thing as playing out of conference games agains P4
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
and, if they do, it will be one more nail in the coffin. Anyone with one iota of working brain cells upstairs understands that 75% of ACC football on any given week is already garbage that nobody watches. You add another conference game, you just create even more garbage that nobody watches, and nobody wants to pay for.
Then, even more important and to your point here, why on God's green earth would FSU, or Clemson, or Miami, or anyone else that's serious want to be forced to schedule another stinker that nobody will watch against SMU? Or Wake? Or BC? Or Syracuse? Or Duke? Or Cal? Or Stanford? Or Pitt? Because that's the vast majority of what they'll be getting. More trash. Their whole deal is that they want OUT, they don't want to keep playing these worthless programs.
This stinker conference cannot implode soon enough. Frankly, it should have gone instead of the PAC-12. At least the PAC-12 made sense in its former iteration.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
want the conference to implode? It is obvious to most that the ACC and B12 will never get media contracts that will rival the BIG or SEC, so what is the solution? Is there even a solution, as it appears that moving forward, either a program has the money to compete, or it does not. Hoping for a P2 invite is a fools errand unless you are a top football brand with the eyeballs. Who you play should matter less, but some think that is the solution.
Ohio State, ND, Bama, and other brands get good ratings no matter who they play. That is because they have spent decades upon decades investing money into their programs.
Schedule more ACC games, or not. I don't think it matters. What matters is can you invest enough money to be a top 10 program year after year. To me at least, that is the new reality.
The ACC can produce top 10 programs, and the occasional National Champion. Who those schools play during the regular season is less important, because if you are a top 10 program, you will get the time slots, the ratings, and it's the only pathway to become a "football brand".
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
spend a single millisecond mourning its loss when it inevitably implodes. The ACC is a conference full of non-serious football programs run by a bunch of non-serious dorks who think it's still the 1980s and who have made literally every wrong decision they could possibly make for the past 20 years, and any serious football program in the ACC has likely been permanently relegated to second- or third-class status for it. The sooner this pathetic zombie conference goes the way of the dodo, the better.
VT is currently suffering through its own problems, most glaringly that the people running the athletic department have been incompetent or asleep at the wheel with zero oversight, but those chickens have come home to roost, and we're seeing movement now, because, at the end of the day, after all the BS is said and done, too many people at VT or otherwise in its orbit are serious about having a nationally competitive football program. I have never once claimed on here that VT is a shoo-in for SEC or Big 10 membership, but I will tell you right now that if the ACC went belly up tomorrow, VT would be in the Big 12 by the end of the week, and, on average, playing more interesting schedules against more serious football programs, instead of in a conference with the 7th best team in Texas, the two worst football programs from the old PAC-12, and Wake Forest.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
Lane to be a destination of current B12 members. That being said, it doesn't address how the money thing stacks up, even with universities and fans that want to compete at the highest levels. I just don't see how the schools that are serious about competing getting over that hump.
KU, Oregon, and other institutions apparently have billionaires willing to step up - but the majority of schools like K-State don't have that luxury.
Conference regulation of CFB is dooming the sport we all grew up with. Maybe, at the end of the day, it's not a bad thing? Institutions will have to make that decision, as they money to compete has to come from somewhere, and how many VT NIL donors are satisfied with their "investment" this year? That goes across every single power institution this year that does not perform to expectations. The donors will stop sending their money, right at the time when the programs need it the most.
The recent settlement puts a soft cap on pay for play. When a college quarterback can make $10M a year, something has to give, or we lose the sport forever.
I see no mechanism to "negotiate" a hard cap or a hard minimum for pay for play. I also see no body that can make getting an education the top priority (if it ever was) again. The courts will jack it up even more IMO.
I'm not sure how congress getting involved could make it worse, as one branch of the government is already involved.
I contend that it's time for anti trust, hard regulations, and at least a sense of the "student athlete" being a priority. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter which conference you are in or who you play.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
that they will not make SEC or Big 10 money when they're not in the SEC or Big 10. That is what it is.
But, to be frank, as we've all seen, VT isn't even funded like it should be in the ACC. Even at VT's current level of funding, with the group of incompetents running the athletic department the past 20 years, they haven't been able to achieve commensurate results. All that has come home to roost now. Lots of people either have been or are about to be fired because of it.
We're not talking about Wake Forest. We're talking about VT, a program that has played for a MNC and won multiple BCS bowls this century, regularly sells out its 70k seat stadium even with ho hum schedules, and enjoys a high level of fan support even when things are horrible. This is not a poverty school with zero fan support. My expectation (and I hope anyone else that pulls for VT's expectation) for VT is to fund the program at or right around the same level of funding that the other best programs in the conference are funded, and to be either highly competitive or win the conference EVERY YEAR.
My problem with the ACC is that, even if things were all hunky dory for VT and everything was running in 6th gear, VT would still be less of a priority for the conference than Wake Forest, because the majority of ACC membership is similarly situated to Wake Forest - small private academic schools with no fanbase that aren't focused on football. When it comes to football, and everything eventually does, the ACC is non-serious conference ran by non-serious people.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
10mo
the P4. @HOO86 just mentioned that UVA and NC State just played an OOC game. However, I would love West Virginia in DC every year, and Maryland doing a home and away every year. We already have Maryland starting next year for the next 4 years.
PS I am done with playing SEC games in Atlanta, we need games in DC for our alums and fan bases in the DMV, RIC and HR, not just for attending, but for TV ratings as the local Media stations will be taking about the game, not to mention Social Media too.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
S
Stech
10mo
things like this favor Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU and for some reason even with their mediocre football record for 30-40 years, UNC. So I have my doubts, even though it should pass for the good of the conference. BTW, one way is for Notre Dame to go to 6 games, which they should have done when they lead the way to adding Stanford, Cal and SMU. However, don’t expect them to it, you will be disappointed again if you think that. As TerryD keeps saying, ND is only for ND, and they don’t care about the conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
they will have to do it with the members they now have, and if it's in the cards, members they may have in the future.
IMO, if the ACC, or B12 for that matter, want to be relevant moving forward, they need to set a minimum football and basketball budget across the board.
it's easy to get revenue and expenditure numbers from the public athletic universities, but it's difficult to separate how much of that budget is for football. tOSU has about $300M in revenue. Michigan is not far behind. There are no numbers on how much of that money OSU allocates to football, but Michigan's football program spent $75M last year alone. If we want to compete with the big boys, we have to find the money.
Using the $75M figure, how many B12 or ACC schools do you think have a football only budget of $75M? With most of our schools having revenue in the $100M - $125M range, my guess is not many of us.
If the ACC or B12 set a hard minimum of $75M for the football program, how many schools do you think would have to leave, or want to leave the conference? To put it a different way, how many would take a partial BIG or SEC distribution, and commit to spending $75M to $100M on their football program annually?
I think this may be where we are headed. Either you have the money to compete, or you don't. If there is ever a "super league", that in all probability will be the line. Media money helps, but it is only one leg to the total revenue pie. Conference distributions, ticket sales, apparel, ... etc. are other legs. Then you have two other biggies. Donations and institutional support. The latter two will be the determining factor for many institutions.
How does a VT or any B12 school come up with the $26M football coaching budget that tOSU has? Add $20M+ to pay the players, and you are close to $50M in a blink of an eye. For some universities in the B12, the separation of the athletic department and the University are starting to get cloudy, as either they find the money to compete at the highest levels, or they will be left behind - no matter how many people watch their games.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
We will likely see a new General Manager position for football reporting directly to the President. The AD will have all the other sports, and also report directly to the President. That’s what is trickling out as we get closer to the BOV meeting in a couple of weeks.
PS Give me Bruce Arians for the General Manager position, and for picking our next Head Football Coach. 🤞
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
in your 70's? I'll bet he's happy doing his own thing.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
UF is dropping some games, but I expect them to continue playing FSU.
If UF can manage nine conference games plus FSU, FSU should be able to do the same. As for Clemson, they might be able to stay at eight games if their ND matchup counts.
Personally, I’d like to see more VT-FSU games, ideally annually, even though VT may loses most of time. This would also boost ratings.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
championship game, and who doesn't, you might reconsider some not playing 9.
While I have no hunting dog in the number of conference games the ACC plays, maybe all the power conferences should be the same?
(In response to this post by HOO86)
10mo
ESPN wanted another SEC conference game, because people actually watch them. Nobody is clamoring for an additional ACC game involving SMU, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, etc. etc. etc. Nobody is going to pay anything extra for more ACC football. The ACC adding another conference game just compounds the conference's primary issue - it's full of crappy brands that nobody cares about watching.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
Also, at this point, more ACC games would basically be more "G6" games. Nobody wants the product - broadcasters don't want it, good ACC programs don't want it, and crappy ACC programs don't want it. If literally ANYONE wanted more ACC games, there would have already been movement and an announcement.
Be sure to get back to us as soon as the ACC starts raiding the Big 12, big guy.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
The AVERAGE ACC game is still better than the AVERAGE G6 game.
But you love cherry-picking the worst-performing ACC teams. Sure the ACC has BC and Wake, but it also has Clemson and FSU.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
When 75% of the ACC is garbage that nobody watches, and they add another ACC conference game, what do you think the vast majority of that product is going to be?
I can't believe anyone still pays any attention to your smug BS on here. And, I'd still love to know what you're actually doing here - care to share what personal project you're using this free board for, or are you still keeping that little tidbit close to the vest?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
Boston College or Duke or Wake Forest or Syracuse or SMU or Cal or Stanford or Pitt. The same goes for a fair number of G5 teams.
I feel sorry for you that you’re incapable of computing that math, big guy.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
I don’t object playing B12 schools but they already play 9 conference games.
Pat Fodre explained the math problem for the ACC, which I quoted in the OP. I am copying the text here again.
——————
This is also a math problem. If the ACC stays at eight, it needs 34 nonconference games against P4 opponents to reach Phillips’s threshold. Nine or 10 are currently baked in annually: the Notre Dame games plus annual rivalries Florida State–Florida, Clemson–South Carolina, Georgia Tech–Georgia and Louisville–Kentucky. It’s hard to find willing partners to schedule 24 more, especially now that the SEC just took away 16 scheduling opportunities by going to a ninth conference game.
—————-
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
the ACC mitigate the problems the conference is currently dealing with. I think, based upon what I've read in your posts, we can both agree on that. Or, maybe not, who knows.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
My opinion is that it's a necessary (and reactionary) measure to take given the SEC's move to nine games.
I want to see the ACC organize more matchups between better-known brands, and hopefully, we can see more games against FSU.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
and take it out of the conference administration's hand. I suppose that would effectively be the top half of the conference declaring war on the bottom half.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
But, as far as I know, for example, FSU doesn't have an OOC series scheduled with Clemson, VT, GT, or Louisville. I think they get Miami every year as a "protected" conference rival.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
FSU, ND, and Clemson would get priority in conference scheduling? I remember that being part of the settlement. I could be wrong.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
because they're also now divvying up media rights revenue by viewership.
That was just one more big fat railroad nail in the already very nailed shut coffin of the ACC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
to play each other more often> It's not just FSU, and you are right, it's a stacked deck, and will implode the ACC IMO.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
They don't get to play each other more often, at least I've not seen anything about that.
You really do have to hand it to the ACC - the conference bats 1.000 when it comes to waiting too long to address problems and making asinine decisions that make zero sense. I can't wait to sit back and watch it all come falling down.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
the PAC, it would be a shame. That being said, it certainly looks inevitable.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
10mo
know you have a brand.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
teams play a "fun" style of football, their games are a lot more entertaining, and they may even be slowly building a bigger "brand" that some of the ACC schools. I'm using brand loosely here to signify why a viewer decides to watch the JMU vs. App State game instead of the BC vs. Wake game. Particularly when the view has no rooting interest in any of the teams involved in the 2 games.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
10mo
After the Louisville/VT/GT tier there is a pretty sharp dropoff in attendance and television ratings.
Maybe in some years Pitt but they're a fair-weather fanbase. This is tangental to your point but the reason the BigXII is stronger is because the 14th BigXII brand is bigger than the 8th ACC brand. 12 of the bottom 15 programs in these two conferences are ACC teams. There isn't a lot of 'average'. I may have mentioned this to you previously but West Virginia just went through their worst 6 years in a half-century and they would be a top 5 ACC brand tomorrow. They aren't interested in joining of course but it's a better example of what an average P4 brand is in the current landscape.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
know JMU and/or App State aren't "average" in a given season? Right now, JMU is 1-1 and App State is 2-1 with a lost to So. Miss who is also 2-1. There is nothing to indicate that either team is above average or even great this year. Heck they aren't even the front runners for the G6 playoff bid because there are 4 AAC teams tied at 3-0; Memphis, Navy, North Texas, and Tulane.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
10mo
don't think that is what your saying, but it sure sounds like it.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
10mo
Got to follow the chain of command on these things, right? 🤦♂️
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
TerryD
10mo
ND has no dog in this fight.
It doesn't matter to ND what the ACC does regarding the number of conference games.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
has over the ACC. FSU, Clemson and UNC voted against them, but that couldn’t stop ND from getting what they wanted. It’s extraordinary that they have so much influence in the football part of the conference, but they do. If you think Jim “Dame” Phillips isn’t getting ND’s take on this, you have your head in the sand. ND doesn’t even rotate through the conference anymore. They mainly rotate through 3 teams.
However, if you don’t want to see that Jim “Dame” Phillips goes to ND on everything, you will never see it. So right ND has no say in this! 🤣🤣
(In response to this post by TerryD)
H
HOO86
10mo
The new members bring excitement to the league. There are some more I'd like that we've discussed. But the ACC is usually slow to add. Although we're sitting here at 18. I remember when it was 7.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
of overall connection to them, but maybe that’s just me.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
T
TerryD
10mo
It wanted Cal, Stanford and SMU to prop up the ACC in order to support ND's football independence.
That example has zero to do with this issue.
To my point again:
ND doesn't care about this issue, at all.
The number of ACC conference games other schools play is irrelevant to ND or its football independence.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
every issue, even if your “opinion” is correct and they don’t care about it. I am surprised that you are not proud about their dominance for their 2-3 games with ACC teams on ESPN a year, but still our commissioner acts like they are a full and most dominant member in football. It’s great for Notre Dame, but it’s one of the reasons the ACC’s two most successful football programs sued the ACC.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
10mo
.....regarding conference realignment.
I only care about ND maintaining football independence, nothing else.
I care nothing at all about conferences, so no, I am not "proud" of any such claimed ND conference influence.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
two schools suing to get out of the conference. If they had been successful, the contract with ESPN very well could have been canceled worst case, or altered, less of a worst case. That move was self preservation, and given how many on this board feel about academics, you should be thrilled to have them as part of your conference.
The ACC's issues are most definitely viewership numbers, and the current media contract. Having ND games does nothing but help the ACC's viewership numbers, and IMHO, the ACC is lucky to have them.
ND will not solve the ACC's issues, and they are not the cause of the current media contract disparities. Again, you guys are lucky to have them associated with your conference.
The new uneven distribution models, and the new scheduling of ND games against the top ACC brands could save the ACC as we now know it, but it will not solve the financial difficulties of the lesser known brands of the ACC - anymore than they would help the B12.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
age of 65 for their referees.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
10mo
What school or conference they will come from? Anything floating around out there?
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
H
HOO86
10mo
They hired a Search Firm. They created a Website for the UVA Community input. But I haven't seen any timeline.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
may I have another. Yes the B12 survived, but only because the PAC became weaker than the B12.
Look this is all on the ACC Presidents, ND only televises 2-3 football games on ESPN per year. At least Texas did more than that because the Longhorn Channel pretty much never carried their football. Yet when Jim “Dame” Phillips makes a call about ACC football, the first one he calls is ND. You may not think that is out of whack, but sorry that’s not a productive long term relationship. Just like Texas wasn’t in the B12, but it’s a lot worse IMHO. A lot more destructive, but you see it the way you want to see it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
and how strong they are, or they are not. I would find those discussing interesting, but it is irrelevent moving forward.
IMHO, emphasizing the humble part, Jim Phillips SHOULD have ND on speed dial, as losing the ND's affiliation would have injured the recent extension of the ESPN contract. If it was ND that wanted Stanford in the ACC, and so far, it's only opinions, then absolutely Phillips was right in adding them. I just don't think ND mandated that the ACC add those three schools, as I see it as a move to keep the contract until 2036 if FSU, Clemson, and ya, ND left the conference.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 9/15/2025, 9:15:09 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
-idents are totally responsible, we agree on that, so maybe we should end this with agreeing on that part.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
ND was offered a full share of the B12 contract next time it comes up in 2030 for the same deal that ND currently has with the ACC? I'm not in any way saying that would happen, or ND would even be interested in such a deal, but the ACC is in a tough spot, and the ND affiliation should be one of Philips top priorities. ND should be the first call that Phillips makes, and if ND wanted Navy in the ACC, then the ACC should add Navy. Like it or not, ND is one of the fingernails the ACC is hanging on too.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
and use the ACC Network to build up basketball and Olympic Sports. They don’t care about conference money from football, they do too well on their own.
If that happens, do I think the football first schools in ACC that don’t get a P2 spot could join the B12 because the football money is better? Entirely possible, but I don’t see ND being one of them. I see the ACC Big East merger, and the conference being called the Academic Conference of Champions. Just an educated. guess, but that’s what I think.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
10mo
I do believe that this is where the ACC is heading and that ND would be happy if it happens.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
(In response to this post by TerryD)
10mo
merge, it will because they lost their football brands, and it will be a different type of conference.
Of ND didn't care about the money, and it's an academic snobbery, they wouldn't be taking the $17M++ in distributions they are currently.
ND wants access to the playoffs and NCAA tournament. They also want to stay independent.
There just are not a lot of blue bloods not in the P2. The ACC should do anything they can to keep ND satisfied, and that would be keeping the conference together and relevant.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
already schedule any B12 they want to schedule. They love the private schools in the ACC and Big East.
We agree to disagree on whether ND likes being a part of highly ranked schools for their other sports. By the way, during basketball season both Jay Bilas, Seth Greenberg and Jim Boeheim all ESPN employees were saying the ACC and Big East should eventually merge. If you have dealt with TV, you know most if not all of that stuff is programmed/planned.
** Edited by Stech at 9/15/2025, 11:03:01 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
have the ability to park their other sports in the Big east, or Big East/ACC conference. If that happens though, I do not see them keeping their football scheduling agreement. I see them scheduling mor schools like the recently announced 10 year series with Clemson. There isn't one single school in the US that wouldn't look at such a scheduling agreement.
No, I do not think ND will be a part of the B12, but they will have no trouble scheduling any remaining ACC school, or any B12 school for that matter. With the playoff expansion, I could see a LSU or Michigan also scheduling such agreements as well. The BIG and SEC media companies would certainly give a positive nod to such scheduling agreements.
ND will not have a problem scheduling games that will continue to have national playoff implications.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
10mo
would like to schedule Stanford and SMU if/when the P2 takes ACC teams. They continually recruit Northern California and Dallas Fort Worth.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
they want, any time they want.
If Ohio state went independent, they too would be able to schedule anyone anytime. There are a few schools like that, but certainly, not many. ND is pretty unique, and was a national brand before national brands became a thing.
(In response to this post by Stech)
10mo
conference schedules should trump Notre Dame's desire. At least Notre Dame may be limited on who is available in October and early November because conferences are either unable to move a conference game or unwilling to move a conference game to another date to free up the week so Team A can play an OOC game against Notre Dame. Ohio State would probably run into the same situation too.
I'm not following why you think Stech is wrong in the previous post. Notre Dame is on the record for saying the reason it likes alternating between at USC and at Stanford in football is because of the benefits in recruiting (perceived or real) that is gained by playing games in those regions. I think Notre Dame has made similar comments about the DFW area.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
10mo
Gotta jump ship before Pitt and NCState leave.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)