PDA

View Full Version : Notre Dame will be in ACC next year



Son of Jarhead
03-12-2013, 01:07 AM
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/03/11/notre-dame-set-to-jump-to-acc-next-year/

Official reports should come Tuesday.

-bdbd
03-12-2013, 02:42 AM
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/03/11/notre-dame-set-to-jump-to-acc-next-year/

Check out the MD and Big10 commenters at the bottom.

It sure sounds like we'll know a lot more after the Big East vote Tuesday. But I have to think this is a big positive for the ACC. Both ND B-ball programs are ranked nationally - the women being top-3 level. I think the ND women will give Duke a real run for their money in-conference next season. Will be fun seeing K take on his old protege, Mike B.

Any way we can get MD to leave earlier?? :rolleyes:

-bdbd
03-12-2013, 03:05 AM
Bleacher confirming too...


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1563370-notre-dames-basketball-team-will-reportedly-enter-the-acc-next-season

Lord Ash
03-12-2013, 07:09 AM
To be fair, me posting "Yeah it's true!" is about as much a confirmation as Bleacher Report saying it.

Duke_92
03-12-2013, 08:12 AM
To be fair, me posting "Yeah it's true!" is about as much a confirmation as Bleacher Report saying it.

Actually I'm more like to believe you!

Cameron
03-12-2013, 08:43 AM
Being located in Toledo, I really hope that Duke plays in South Bend next year. That would account for two for-sure games that I can easily attend next season, the other being the matchup with Kansas in Chicago. Although, I would bet almost anything that Notre Dame will travel to Cameron Indoor for its ACC opener with the Blue Devils.

MCFinARL
03-12-2013, 09:25 AM
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/03/11/notre-dame-set-to-jump-to-acc-next-year/

Check out the MD and Big10 commenters at the bottom.

It sure sounds like we'll know a lot more after the Big East vote Tuesday. But I have to think this is a big positive for the ACC. Both ND B-ball programs are ranked nationally - the women being top-3 level. I think the ND women will give Duke a real run for their money in-conference next season. Will be fun seeing K take on his old protege, Mike B.

Any way we can get MD to leave earlier?? :rolleyes:

To say the least. If Skylar Diggs weren't graduating this year, I would call even the very impressive 2013-14 Duke squad (losing only Vernerey and gaining 3 top freshmen, plus hopefully Gray back along with Henson and Heckman) a clear underdog against Notre Dame.

-bdbd
03-12-2013, 10:55 AM
More confirmation now. Seems to be a done deal. All good for the ACC.
Will be interesting to get an early taste of the scheduling with a 15-team BB league...


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/

WELCOME IRISH!!!

Bluedog
03-12-2013, 11:10 AM
More confirmation now. Seems to be a done deal. All good for the ACC.
Will be interesting to get an early taste of the scheduling with a 15-team BB league...


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/

WELCOME IRISH!!!

I personally like dividing the conference into two divisions and then having a round robin within the division and then single games cross-divisions. So, that'd be 6*2 = 12 games + 6 games across divisions for 18 total games. (Thus, only not playing one team in the conference.) Say, something like:

Division 1: Duke, UNC, Clemson, Virginia, Ga Tech, NC State, and Wake
Division 2: BC, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, ND, Pitt, and Syracuse
Not assigned: Maryland

;)

Note that I don't think the above actually makes much sense from a geography or scheduling standpoint, but just hoping for the old ACC round-robin...I do think something like the above could work if we had an even number of teams, though.

MCFinARL
03-12-2013, 12:17 PM
More confirmation now. Seems to be a done deal. All good for the ACC.
Will be interesting to get an early taste of the scheduling with a 15-team BB league...


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/

WELCOME IRISH!!!

Yup, it's official--press release from the ACC. http://www.theacc.com/genrel/031213aaa.html

MCFinARL
03-12-2013, 12:19 PM
I personally like dividing the conference into two divisions and then having a round robin within the division and then single games cross-divisions. So, that'd be 6*2 = 12 games + 6 games across divisions for 18 total games. (Thus, only not playing one team in the conference.) Say, something like:

Division 1: Duke, UNC, Clemson, Virginia, Ga Tech, NC State, and Wake
Division 2: BC, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, ND, Pitt, and Syracuse
Not assigned: Maryland

;)

Note that I don't think the above actually makes much sense from a geography or scheduling standpoint, but just hoping for the old ACC round-robin...I do think something like the above could work if we had an even number of teams, though.

Yeah, the Division 2 teams might not like the implications for their travel budgets as compared to the Division 1 teams. :D

Jarhead
03-12-2013, 12:26 PM
I have a feeling that there are other shoes ready to drop:

1. What about Louisville?
2. Also, what happens to the teams from all over the country that had committed to the old BE?
3. Who will join the Catholic 7 in the NewBE?
4. How's that for a nick name, the NewBE?
5. Finally, not quite, what is in the works for Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Rutgers?
6. Would any one of them end up in the ACC, or the B1G?
7. When does Notre Dame football start the 5 game ACC schedule?

That's a lot of questions, but I'm sure that there are others.

hurleyfor3
03-12-2013, 12:32 PM
1. What about Louisville?

Yeah, what about them? Does anyone remember why it was so important to add them? There's no driving reason to have an even number of teams; in fact football and everything else will differ by one anyway.

Duvall
03-12-2013, 12:36 PM
Yeah, what about them? Does anyone remember why it was so important to add them? There's no driving reason to have an even number of teams; in fact football and everything else will differ by one anyway.

You can't have divisions with differing numbers of teams - it makes scheduling nearly impossible. The SEC actually looked at 13-team scheduling as a temporary measure after adding Texas A&M and concluded that it was unworkable.

hurleyfor3
03-12-2013, 12:43 PM
You can't have divisions with differing numbers of teams - it makes scheduling nearly impossible. The SEC actually looked at 13-team scheduling as a temporary measure after adding Texas A&M and concluded that it was unworkable.

OK, but then why did we... oh never mind, I must have been away from the internet when this all went down.

ForkFondler
03-12-2013, 12:44 PM
I have a feeling that there are other shoes ready to drop:

1. What about Louisville?
2. Also, what happens to the teams from all over the country that had committed to the old BE?


http://college-football.si.com/2013/03/06/big-east-football-schedule

Duvall
03-12-2013, 12:46 PM
I have a feeling that there are other shoes ready to drop:

1. What about Louisville?

Will join the ACC in all sports on July 1, 2014. Hard to see that changing at this point.


2. Also, what happens to the teams from all over the country that had committed to the old BE?

Some are still coming, others are not. The Big East That Was will consist of Central Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rutgers, SMU, South Florida and Temple in 2013-2014, and Central Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, East Carolina, Tulane and Temple in 2014-2015.


3. Who will join the Catholic 7 in the NewBE?

Not announced yet. Butler and Xavier are likely, among others (Creighton, Dayton, Saint Louis.)


5. Finally, not quite, what is in the works for Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Rutgers?

Well, Rutgers is joining the Big Ten in 2014 along with Maryland. Connecticut, Cincinnati and South Florida now wait to see what happens next.


6. Would any one of them end up in the ACC, or the B1G?

Anything's possible, though it's hard to see the ACC adding another team without someone leaving or the Big Ten settling for one of those teams.


7. When does Notre Dame football start the 5 game ACC schedule?

2014.

nocilla
03-12-2013, 12:52 PM
I have a feeling that there are other shoes ready to drop:

1. What about Louisville?
2. Also, what happens to the teams from all over the country that had committed to the old BE?
3. Who will join the Catholic 7 in the NewBE?
4. How's that for a nick name, the NewBE?
5. Finally, not quite, what is in the works for Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Rutgers?
6. Would any one of them end up in the ACC, or the B1G?
7. When does Notre Dame football start the 5 game ACC schedule?

That's a lot of questions, but I'm sure that there are others.

I can't answer them all (very well anyway) but;
1. 2014
2. No idea
3. Supposedly Butler, Xavier, and Creighton
4. Better than America 12
5. Rutgers to B1G in 2014, no idea about UConn and Cinn
6. Not Rutgers anyway.
7. 2014

Dunkin
03-12-2013, 12:56 PM
It's being reported by the ACC facebook account.

hurleyfor3
03-12-2013, 12:58 PM
It's being reported by the ACC facebook account.

Hey Big East, friend this!

JasonEvans
03-12-2013, 01:08 PM
Anyone think we should just let Maryland go to the B!G a year early to keep the conference at a manageable 12 teams in the 2013-2014 season?

They'd still have to pay the $50 mil. but we could set them free early.

-Jason "I would love to see the schedule-makers just screw Marlyand next year... give them 12 road games or something like that" Evans

hudlow
03-12-2013, 01:10 PM
The Fighting Irish in the ACC....?

Take me now Lord.

fgb
03-12-2013, 01:12 PM
3. Who will join the Catholic 7 in the NewBE?


notre dame would have been the perfect choice.

fgb
03-12-2013, 01:18 PM
i have to say, this stuff is all just sad to me. the acc quit being the acc in my mind once the home and away series for every team stopped. i love duke basketball as much as i ever have, but the acc doesn't really mean a whole lot any more, until the tourny. the familiarity between teams, and the intimacy that it brought to games, sadly, is just gone.

one of two great things my kids will never know (the other being hanging out in record stores).

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 01:25 PM
Anyone think we should just let Maryland go to the B!G a year early to keep the conference at a manageable 12 teams in the 2013-2014 season?

You mean 14?

JasonEvans
03-12-2013, 01:27 PM
i have to say, this stuff is all just sad to me. the acc quit being the acc in my mind once the home and away series for every team stopped. i love duke basketball as much as i ever have, but the acc doesn't really mean a whole lot any more, until the tourny. the familiarity between teams, and the intimacy that it brought to games, sadly, is just gone.

one of two great things my kids will never know (the other being hanging out in record stores).

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, but the reality of money in sports demanded action and expansion into new markets. That is just how it works and Maryland's defection shows that age-old loyalties mean nothing when facing the power of the almighty dollar.

So, if we had to do something, I think most of our moves have been very solid ones and have preserved at least some of what made the ACC great.

-Jason "at least we aren't as far flung and random as the Big East... they are the big expansion losers, no question about it" Evans

JasonEvans
03-12-2013, 01:30 PM
You mean 14?

Yup, sorry. I merely meant that it would be an even number of teams. Even = easy to schedule, Odd = badly imbalanced schedules, I fear.

-Jason "15 = 3 divisions of 5 teams each, I guess" Evans

Bob Green
03-12-2013, 01:48 PM
So, if we had to do something, I think most of our moves have been very solid ones and have preserved at least some of what made the ACC great.


This Al Featherston article featuring comments from Dr. Kevin White talks about managing change:

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=206722563&DB_OEM_ID=4200


“If you are Duke, what you want to do is be a leader in creating tomorrow,” White said recently. “You don’t want to run the risk of having someone else create tomorrow for you and make you see the world through their respective prism … quite frankly, you would find that to be uncomfortable, and/or untenable for a place like Duke.”

Mudge
03-12-2013, 01:56 PM
notre dame would have been the perfect choice.

^^^Exactly!^^^ (Notre Dame could have been their 8th basketball school, and then kept playing football on their own, as is their wont.) ND can't make up its mind about being in a conference-- and why people keep half-way accomodating them, I don't know... if what is posted earlier (about uneven conference divisions, due to odd numbers of teams, being unworkable), then the ACC just signed up to a lifetime of unworkable schedules, because they will never be able to create even numbers of teams in the two main revenue-producing sports: If the ACC goes with an even number of basketball teams (including ND), then it will be forced to have an odd number of football teams (because ND has only agreed to play 5 league games-- and thus surely can't be considered for a conference championship-- by the way, are those 5 games going to count in the league standings for the teams that play ND?)... and if the ACC goes with an even number of football teams (leaving aside ND), then it will have an odd number of basketball teams (if ND is included... maybe the deal should be that ND gets to play a certain number of league teams in basketball, say 10-12, but it can't be considered for the league championship there-- and never gets to play both Duke and UNC in the same season).

I think ND needs to make up its mind-- either you're in or you're out-- why do you want a league, if you don't want a league. The ND football contract (all by its lonesome, and thus all to itself) is apparently not as lucrative as the Big 10's is for every member-- thus Northwestern and Indiana get more from television rights for football than ND does right now-- talk about wanting to re-think your past decisions? I wonder if ND regrets not joining the Big 10 (when it was on offer) as much as Florida State apparently now regrets joining the ACC over the SEC, 20+ years ago... DBR always wants to make it out that South Carolina must regret leaving the ACC in 1971 (punctuated with statements to the effect of "we should never let 'em back in"-- as if!), when USC is laughing all the way to the silly football-money bank-- I don't think USC has EVER regretted that decision-- and if they did, they most certainly don't today.

P.S.-- All this nostalgia for the "old ACC" always seems kind of phony to me, when people include GIT (or even FSU) as a traditional ACC school-- I can still remember when GIT joined, and started playing basketball in the ACC, and they had the saddest sack coach (Dwayne Morrison) and team that you could imagine-- they were the laughing stock of the league for a good 2-3 years (unfortunately in Coach K's second or third year, Duke was sad enough to actually lose one to that sad sack team)... there are really only 7 traditional ACC schools (if you want to count UVa)... and of those, Clemson has nearly always stunk in basketball (you mean you've NEVER won a game at Chapel Hill!!!), even though they've had any number of talented players, UVa actually joined a year late, and has had very few good seasons (when have they won the hoops title-- once in the '70's and once in the '80's?-- Northwestern's done better than that in Big 10 football!), and then Maryland has never really felt like it belonged with the NC schools (witness their whining about the tournament being on Tobacco Road-- by a Duke grad, no less), as they have amply demonstrated with their decision to bail out for the Big 10... so, by my unofficial count, there are really only four true, dyed-in-the-wool, old-line ACC schools-- and they are all in North Carolina-- what people are really talking about, when they wax nostalgic for the "old ACC", is the Big Four-- maybe they just need to bring back the Dixie Classic to satisfy these people.

Bob Green
03-12-2013, 02:08 PM
I think ND needs to make up its mind-- either you're in or you're out-- why do you want a league, if you don't want a league.

As has been posted in previous threads, I expect Notre Dame will become a full conference member in football in the future.




P.S.-- All this nostalgia for the "old ACC" always seems kind of phony to me, when people include GIT...

The difference for me is the ACC needed Georgia Tech when they were admitted in 1979 as being a seven team conference sucked. I welcomed GT with open arms and will always consider them to be one of the old guard. Plus "old ACC" is a relative term seeing as many, many posters on DBR were not alive in 1979 when Georgia Tech was added. The number of active posters who actively followed the ACC when South Carolina was a member is even smaller.

Mudge
03-12-2013, 03:30 PM
As has been posted in previous threads, I expect Notre Dame will become a full conference member in football in the future.



The difference for me is the ACC needed Georgia Tech when they were admitted in 1979 as being a seven team conference sucked. I welcomed GT with open arms and will always consider them to be one of the old guard. Plus "old ACC" is a relative term seeing as many, many posters on DBR were not alive in 1979 when Georgia Tech was added. The number of active posters who actively followed the ACC when South Carolina was a member is even smaller.

You bring up the other thing I forgot to mention-- if having an odd number of members is so difficult, why was the ACC able to do it just fine from 1971-1979? I also think the Atlantic 10 (which hasn't had 10 members for several years now) has at various times had odd numbers of members-- I don't think they have worried a bit about having an odd number-- this isn't MLB, where most teams need someone to play every night.

Duvall
03-12-2013, 03:37 PM
You bring up the other thing I forgot to mention-- if having an odd number of members is so difficult, why was the ACC able to do it just fine from 1971-1979? I also think the Atlantic 10 (which hasn't had 10 members for several years now) has at various times had odd numbers of members-- I don't think they have worried a bit about having an odd number-- this isn't MLB, where most teams need someone to play every night.

It's not having an odd number of teams that's a problem, it's having unequal divisions. Having seven or nine or eleven members is manageable if you don't worry about divisions and just play a round robin or pick eight games to play.

hurleyfor3
03-12-2013, 03:43 PM
You bring up the other thing I forgot to mention-- if having an odd number of members is so difficult, why was the ACC able to do it just fine from 1971-1979? I also think the Atlantic 10 (which hasn't had 10 members for several years now) has at various times had odd numbers of members-- I don't think they have worried a bit about having an odd number-- this isn't MLB, where most teams need someone to play every night.

I guess once you get beyond 11 teams, the holes where you're not playing teams at all (in football) get too big.

The Big Televen did 11 for some 20 years. The ACC did nine for I think 14 years and had one year of 11. The Big East had nine basketball members for a very long time, as did the SEC. Tons of other examples.

For basketball I don't think even/odd parity matters. You play some teams twice, some once, everyone plays in the tournament (maybe you leave out the bottom few, who don't deserve to win anyway) and whoever wins it is the champion. Got a problem with it? Make your conference smaller and go back to round robin.

-bdbd
03-12-2013, 03:44 PM
Just a note of caution for those disillusioned "nastalgic" types: While I am a long-time Duke fane (I slightly pre-date K even), and miss many of the old-time things like an 8-team ACC and Duke's old Student Union (under West Union building was it?), I feel like I have to say that THE OLD ACC IS GONE, AND IT ISN'T COMING BACK. So, the choice, now, is whether we fully embrace the "new ACC," including Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, L'ville, OR do we do we continue to pine for our traditions and drag our feet into the "money-grubbing" future of Conference athletics. You don't have to love it, but the future direction in NCAA Conference alignments is pretty obvious - has been for some time. But the "new ACC" with 15 schools, including most of Notre Dame (all non-FB sports, and then 5/8 in for FB), is a hell of a lot better than the realistic alternative. IOW, if the ACC didn't get aggressive and expand into BC, Miami. VPI, Syracuse, Pitt and L'ville, then the only real alternative would have been to sit a wait for our traditional members to get picked off one-by-one. First MD, then FSU, then GaTech, etc.

The point is, simply, nostalgia is good, and I feel it too, really, but don't let it cause any hesitation in terms of doing what is clearly necessary for survival going forward. He who hesitates... well he loses first dibs on schools like Rutgers and prime footprints in critical TV markets....

And this really is going to be a HELL of a Basketball conference going forward - with 'cuse, ND and L'ville as obvious "above average" BB schools (men's and women's by and large) - to say nothing of improvements to the quality of the conference in M/W soccer and M/W LAX, etc. Just hope the FB quality can catch up, and quickly!!

A modified, if slightly less traditional ACC, is still a heck of a lot better than a broken up ACC with some members in the SEC and others in the Big10, with us potentially among a few new "independents" trying to pick up the pieces... :(

Oh, and that old Student Union in the basement -- lots of cool/old style and a real 1950's feel, but the truth is that the Bryan Center offers a load more services and opportunities for the students. Change can be good. :)

ForkFondler
03-12-2013, 04:32 PM
Just a note of caution for those disillusioned "nastalgic" types: While I am a long-time Duke fane (I slightly pre-date K even), and miss many of the old-time things like an 8-team ACC and Duke's old Student Union (under Allen building was it?), I feel like I have to say that THE OLD ACC IS GONE, AND IT ISN'T COMING BACK.

We could get most of it back. If ND comes in with Cincy or Navy-GTown or UConn, then we could have separate ACC and BE divisions. Or you could have 4 teams pods that reflect original makeup, e.g.

ACC-Coastal: Duke, UNC, UVa, GT
ACC-Atlantic: NC State, Wake, Clemson, FSU
BE-Public: Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, VT
BE-Private: ND, Syracuse, BC, Miami

which would yield all-ACC division and all BE-divisions every third year.

OldPhiKap
03-12-2013, 04:40 PM
When do basketball schedules typically get released?

And, any ideas on when the membership of the various divisions will be revealed?

Mudge
03-12-2013, 05:38 PM
We could get most of it back. If ND comes in with Cincy or Navy-GTown or UConn, then we could have separate ACC and BE divisions. Or you could have 4 teams pods that reflect original makeup, e.g.

ACC-Coastal: Duke, UNC, UVa, GT
ACC-Atlantic: NC State, Wake, Clemson, FSU
BE-Public: Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, VT
BE-Private: ND, Syracuse, BC, Miami

which would yield all-ACC division and all BE-divisions every third year.

Why in the world, if that far-fetched scenario ever came to pass, would you put GIT (which is NOT an old ACC school) and UVa in with Duke and UNC, instead of the traditional Big Four Tobacco Road schools?... makes no sense at all.

ForkFondler
03-12-2013, 06:07 PM
Why in the world, if that far-fetched scenario ever came to pass, would you put GIT (which is NOT an old ACC school) and UVa in with Duke and UNC, instead of the traditional Big Four Tobacco Road schools?... makes no sense at all.

I don't think it is far-fetched. In fact, I think it will happen in 3-5 years.

As for GT, that grouping was chosen because it reflects current divisional alignments in football. I think UVa, UNC and Duke will all want to be together. I could see swapping GT for NC State though.

throatybeard
03-12-2013, 10:31 PM
Some are still coming, others are not. The Big East That Was will consist of Central Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rutgers, SMU, South Florida and Temple in 2013-2014, and Central Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, East Carolina, Tulane and Temple in 2014-2015.


I'm glad someone other than me has attention span enough to keep up with that.

Big Eastque quondam, Big Eastque futurus.

I've got ADD about this whole situation. I'm in a bunker, in a fetal position, waiting for it to shake out.

throatybeard
03-12-2013, 10:33 PM
Why in the world, if that far-fetched scenario ever came to pass, would you put GIT (which is NOT an old ACC school) and UVa in with Duke and UNC, instead of the traditional Big Four Tobacco Road schools?... makes no sense at all.

Because nobody but people attached to the four schools gives a rat's patoot about the four of them being connected. They're all in two TV markets. Two are small private schools. And none of them are good at football. The Big 4 schools being connected to each other is irrelevant to over 90% of the American populace, who pay attention to sports, not to mention the folks who don't.

gofurman
03-12-2013, 10:53 PM
Because nobody but people attached to the four schools gives a rat's patoot about the four of them being connected. They're all in two TV markets. Two are small private schools. And none of them are good at football. The Big 4 schools being connected to each other is irrelevant to over 90% of the American populace, who pay attention to sports, not to mention the folks who don't.

quick question - appreciate help

SO nxt year ACC will have the same 12 members (minus Maryland) for 11 members + ND + Pitt + Syracuse for 14 members. Is that right? (for bsktball I mean)

Jarhead
03-12-2013, 10:58 PM
It's being reported by the ACC facebook account.

It's also the title of this thread. Who relies on Facebook anyhow?

OldPhiKap
03-12-2013, 10:58 PM
When do basketball schedules typically get released?

And, any ideas on when the membership of the various divisions will be revealed?

Popping this back up, if anyone has info. Opk

Duvall
03-12-2013, 11:08 PM
When do basketball schedules typically get released?

And, any ideas on when the membership of the various divisions will be revealed?

I guess the basketball schedules will come out sometime in August the way they usually do.

The divisions for football will be the same as they were before, only with Pitt joining Duke in the Coastal Division and Syracuse joining the Atlantic Division. Football is the only sport that will have divisions.

Duvall
03-12-2013, 11:09 PM
quick question - appreciate help

SO nxt year ACC will have the same 12 members (minus Maryland) for 11 members + ND + Pitt + Syracuse for 14 members. Is that right? (for bsktball I mean)

Maryland will still be in the ACC next year and will not leave until next summer. The ACC will have 15 teams in basketball next year with the additions of Notre Dame, Syracuse and Pitt.

OldPhiKap
03-12-2013, 11:13 PM
I guess the basketball schedules will come out sometime in August the way they usually do.

The divisions for football will be the same as they were before, only with Pitt joining Duke in the Coastal Division and Syracuse joining the Atlantic Division. Football is the only sport that will have divisions.

Thanks for info re: schedule.

Re: divisions, hoops will need to as well, no? Cannot believe we will not be home and away with UNC for example.

Duvall
03-12-2013, 11:23 PM
Thanks for info re: schedule.

Re: divisions, hoops will need to as well, no? Cannot believe we will not be home and away with UNC for example.

In basketball, every team will have two rivals that they will play twice each year - for Duke, UNC and Wake. it's all explained here. (http://www.theacc.com/genrel/100312aae.html) After Maryland leaves, Louisville will take their place in each schedule.

Olympic Fan
03-13-2013, 12:07 AM
The ACC will have no divisions in basketball.

Each team will play four teams home-and-home, five teams only on the road and five teams only at home -- 18 games, nine at home and on the road.

Duke will definitely play UNC and Wake home and away ... no telling which other two schools.

Maryland definitely in the mix next year ... then Louiville takes their place in 2014-15.

Struggling golfer
03-13-2013, 02:16 AM
Maryland will still be in the ACC next year and will not leave until next summer. The ACC will have 15 teams in basketball next year with the additions of Notre Dame, Syracuse and Pitt.

Maybe I heard it wrong, but when watching this year's Maryland-Duke game at Maryland, I thought that the announcer said that this was going to be the last game between the 2 schools.

Duvall
03-13-2013, 02:29 AM
Maybe I heard it wrong, but when watching this year's Maryland-Duke game at Maryland, I thought that the announcer said that this was going to be the last game between the 2 schools.

It wasn't. What Maryland fans fear, and I hope, is that the teams will play only once next year and that the game will be at Cameron, making this year's game Duke's last game in College Park.

Class of '94
03-13-2013, 10:03 AM
Anyone think we should just let Maryland go to the B!G a year early to keep the conference at a manageable 12 teams in the 2013-2014 season?

They'd still have to pay the $50 mil. but we could set them free early.

-Jason "I would love to see the schedule-makers just screw Marlyand next year... give them 12 road games or something like that" Evans

I made some comments about MD in the Louisville thread about the merits of the ACC negotiating with MD to allow them to leave a year early for the BIG while saving face with the all of the current members of the ACC.

I read an article (and unfortunately I lost the link; I believe it was in either the Chicago Tribune or USAToday) that mentioned Rutgers and Louisville would play another season in their current league (whatever name the conference ends up calling itself); however, Rutgers would prefer and is trying to leave for the BIG in time to play in that league next season (2013-2014) instead of the 2014-2015 season. If that is true, this could possibly give the ACC some leverage in negotiating with MD to get all or most of the 50 million exit fee in order to allow MD to leave a year early and join with Rutgers in the BIG; or at the very least settle out of court and receive a substantial amount of the 50 million exit fee (say an amount somewhtere between 70 to 80 percent of the 50 million that would be enough to deter other schools from leaving) from MD while avoiding the possibility of having its 50 million exit fee requirement ruled unenforceable in court.

What do any of you think?

msdukie
03-13-2013, 10:43 AM
I guess the basketball schedules will come out sometime in August the way they usually do.

The divisions for football will be the same as they were before, only with Pitt joining Duke in the Coastal Division and Syracuse joining the Atlantic Division. Football is the only sport that will have divisions.

Baseball is the only other sport that has divisions. Same as football except ND takes Syracuse's spot as they don't play baseball.

Olympic Fan
03-13-2013, 04:53 PM
My understanding -- and I think I'm plugged in about this -- is that the ACC is absolutely opposed to negotiating the buyout. It's not about the money so much as establishing the buyout as an obstacle to any future exits.

Maryland WILL be in the ACC next season ... that doesn't create any problems, the plan was always to replace them with Louisville in 2014-15. Notre Dame coming in a year early makes no difference -- they're not playing football in the ACC (which means no unbalanced divisions) and the league has always planned on a division-less 15 team model in basketball -- they're just getting to it a year earlier.

No reason at all to settle the lawsuit with Maryland ... they're going to play it out to the end (and they're confident of winning).

johnb
03-13-2013, 05:23 PM
My understanding -- and I think I'm plugged in about this -- is that the ACC is absolutely opposed to negotiating the buyout. It's not about the money so much as establishing the buyout as an obstacle to any future exits.

Maryland WILL be in the ACC next season ... that doesn't create any problems, the plan was always to replace them with Louisville in 2014-15. Notre Dame coming in a year early makes no difference -- they're not playing football in the ACC (which means no unbalanced divisions) and the league has always planned on a division-less 15 team model in basketball -- they're just getting to it a year earlier.

No reason at all to settle the lawsuit with Maryland ... they're going to play it out to the end (and they're confident of winning).


I can imagine that 70% would be seen as a victory (it's still $35 million, which Maryland Athletics doesn't have and which would presumably be a deterrent to other schools). More pivotally, the ACC might prefer to avoid millions of dollars of ongoing legal fees if the conference decides that some sort of compromise is likely regardless of how hard/long they fight.

In some ways the conference needs to thread a needle. Hardball with existing members to reduce the temptation towards other conferences while also seeming friendly after having ravaged not just the Big East but the dominoed conferences across the country. If Maryland (and the B1G) are willing to write a check for the $35m to get Maryland out and squash the ongoing conflict, I can see the ACC saying fine. Of course, if the B1G has that much money to throw around, I'd hate for them to also throw it at UNC and Florida State, but if they really have THAT much money, then it's likely that some schools are going to leave anyway.

-bdbd
03-13-2013, 05:42 PM
I made some comments about MD in the Louisville thread about the merits of the ACC negotiating with MD to allow them to leave a year early for the BIG while saving face with the all of the current members of the ACC.

I read an article (and unfortunately I lost the link; I believe it was in either the Chicago Tribune or USAToday) that mentioned Rutgers and Louisville would play another season in their current league (whatever name the conference ends up calling itself); however, Rutgers would prefer and is trying to leave for the BIG in time to play in that league next season (2013-2014) instead of the 2014-2015 season. If that is true, this could possibly give the ACC some leverage in negotiating with MD to get all or most of the 50 million exit fee in order to allow MD to leave a year early and join with Rutgers in the BIG; or at the very least settle out of court and receive a substantial amount of the 50 million exit fee (say an amount somewhtere between 70 to 80 percent of the 50 million that would be enough to deter other schools from leaving) from MD while avoiding the possibility of having its 50 million exit fee requirement ruled unenforceable in court.

What do any of you think?

Bad idea. You are saying, in essence, it is worth $15M to the ACC to avoid the "inconvenience" of having to schedule around a 15 team league this coming season. Really??? Cuz I can take care of that little "problem" on a spreadsheet with a couple hours of work, if you want to just give me a couple of those millions... :rolleyes:

And the bigger issue is that you'd be setting a very dangerous prescedent that the exit fee is negotiable at all. So when FSU gets another approach from the SEC or Big12, they'll ask themselves if they can't maybe negotiate it down to $25M or $20M or whatever. Unless you believe that there is a serious risk of an unfavorable ruling re. the legality of the $50M fee, then the ACC has NO incentive to make things the slightest bit easier on MD here. None.

Class of '94
03-13-2013, 06:24 PM
Bad idea. You are saying, in essence, it is worth $15M to the ACC to avoid the "inconvenience" of having to schedule around a 15 team league this coming season. Really??? Cuz I can take care of that little "problem" on a spreadsheet with a couple hours of work, if you want to just give me a couple of those millions... :rolleyes:

And the bigger issue is that you'd be setting a very dangerous prescedent that the exit fee is negotiable at all. So when FSU gets another approach from the SEC or Big12, they'll ask themselves if they can't maybe negotiate it down to $25M or $20M or whatever. Unless you believe that there is a serious risk of an unfavorable ruling re. the legality of the $50M fee, then the ACC has NO incentive to make things the slightest bit easier on MD here. None.

I hear what you're saying. I was looking at it from a perspective that this may be a unique situation in that the Big East as it is currenlty constituted has destabilized faster than expected; and teams like Rutgers want out now and would prefer not to have wait an additional year to go to the BIG. Personally, I think Rutgers would bolt now for the BIG if MD could leave now as well. I think the ACC could use the situation with the Catholic 7 breaking away this summer as opposed to next summer (like many expected) to the conference's benefit by getting MD to pay more than otherwise MD was going to and avoid a drawn out court proecess that could go in MD's favor.

That being said, I agree that the ACC shouldn't set a precedent that could hurt or destabilize the conference.

opossum
03-13-2013, 11:14 PM
We could get most of it back. If ND comes in with Cincy or Navy-GTown or UConn, then we could have separate ACC and BE divisions. Or you could have 4 teams pods that reflect original makeup, e.g.

ACC-Coastal: Duke, UNC, UVa, GT
ACC-Atlantic: NC State, Wake, Clemson, FSU
BE-Public: Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, VT
BE-Private: ND, Syracuse, BC, Miami

which would yield all-ACC division and all BE-divisions every third year.

I think this is how we ease Notre Dame in -- start with rotating five opponents chosen by the ACC every year. When they and Pitt start to miss playing every year, give them the option of playing six games, one of which is always Pitt.

Then add football only Navy (with a basketball school to make it sixteen -- Georgetown? Davidson?)

Set up the ACC side pods the way you have them, but set up the big east pods like this:

BE-A: ND, Pitt, BC, Navy
BE-B: Cuse, Louisville, Miami, VT

Rotate the pods, creating new divisions every year on a three-year rotation. (No rule against that as far as I know).

Everyone plays everyone in conference at least once every three years. And every third year it would be ACC versus Big East (plus Notre Dame and Navy) in the championship game.

Make the 8th cross-division game optional for Notre Dame, and to balance it out allow VT, FSU and Clemson a 5th OOC game the years that they're in the same division as UVA, Miami and Georgia Tech, respectively. (Or rotate it around among the interested schools).

Notre Dame would only be playing four games that they don't already otherwise play (five if you don't count BC as a regular opponent), one fewer than what they've committed to now. They'd have five OOC slots to fill, with Pitt and Navy already taken care of. And they'd have the chance to play for a conference championship, which if the new system is worth a damn, should mean something.

-bdbd
03-14-2013, 02:14 AM
I hear what you're saying. I was looking at it from a perspective that this may be a unique situation in that the Big East as it is currenlty constituted has destabilized faster than expected; and teams like Rutgers want out now and would prefer not to have wait an additional year to go to the BIG. Personally, I think Rutgers would bolt now for the BIG if MD could leave now as well. I think the ACC could use the situation with the Catholic 7 breaking away this summer as opposed to next summer (like many expected) to the conference's benefit by getting MD to pay more than otherwise MD was going to and avoid a drawn out court proecess that could go in MD's favor.

That being said, I agree that the ACC shouldn't set a precedent that could hurt or destabilize the conference.

Cool. I just think that the destabilizing affect of NEGOTIATING DOWN the departure fee would be significant. I think the ACC is more concerned about precedents than it is with whether it gets $40M or $50M from MD... Those few million dollars won't make or break the league, but another couple defections, especially if they are FB powers, could really leave quite a dent. To you point, the only caveat would be that that could be a fall-back IF the league comes to believe that its lawsuit position has become untenable. I don't believe that to be the case by a long shot right now, but things can always change. Always pays to have options. Good thinking.

-jk
03-14-2013, 08:51 AM
When the bcs tourney (inevitably) expands to 8 teams, push for auto-bids for bcs champs and at-large for the other three slots. Make sure a team not playing a full ACC slate cannot play for the ACC championship.

That'll get Notre Dame to join fully.

-jk

Lord Ash
03-14-2013, 09:03 AM
I think this is very exciting. While I am sorry to see the ACC I grew up with disappear, the level of basketball will be really impressive, and adding some academic institutions with some reputation is wonderful as well. How much fun will it be thinking "Hmm... fellow ACC schools NC State, Notre Dame, and Wake!" Strange, but fun:)

gocanes0506
03-14-2013, 10:18 AM
The ACC of old is gone because the soul of the ACC was sold for football. I can't blame the presidents and the commish for doing so as that is the landscape. They just did a terrible job at the schools they choose. VT was a good choice for football. BC was an overall terrible choice (Matt Ryan quickly left and they were terrible in football again). Miami was a choice for football history but has turned into an epic failure.

The ACC would have been smart to add WVU, Pitt, and VT. Those three would have created rivalries.

Could have had WV, Pitt, Maryland, vt, UVA, and Clemson in one division.
Duke, UNC, state, wake, gt, and FSU in the other.

Maryland would have gotten 2 geographical rivals that would travel well and the nc schools could stay together. The moment the 4 nc schools stopped playing home and homes is the minute the conference nose dived. If the conference wants to go back to its roots it will reshuffle the divisions so the the 4 nc schools can play home and home again.

I hope to see

Syracuse, BC, Pitt, ND, Louisville, UVA, Maryland and VT big east division
4 NC schools, Clemson, GT, miami, and FSU in ACC division

Just replace Maryland with someone when they find the right school.

Class of '94
03-14-2013, 11:22 AM
The ACC of old is gone because the soul of the ACC was sold for football. I can't blame the presidents and the commish for doing so as that is the landscape. They just did a terrible job at the schools they choose. VT was a good choice for football. BC was an overall terrible choice (Matt Ryan quickly left and they were terrible in football again). Miami was a choice for football history but has turned into an epic failure.

The ACC would have been smart to add WVU, Pitt, and VT. Those three would have created rivalries.

Could have had WV, Pitt, Maryland, vt, UVA, and Clemson in one division.
Duke, UNC, state, wake, gt, and FSU in the other.

Maryland would have gotten 2 geographical rivals that would travel well and the nc schools could stay together. The moment the 4 nc schools stopped playing home and homes is the minute the conference nose dived. If the conference wants to go back to its roots it will reshuffle the divisions so the the 4 nc schools can play home and home again.

I hope to see

Syracuse, BC, Pitt, ND, Louisville, UVA, Maryland and VT big east division
4 NC schools, Clemson, GT, miami, and FSU in ACC division

Just replace Maryland with someone when they find the right school.

I get what you're saying about BC; but I also understand why the ACC chose BC over a school like WVU. I'm assuming that ACC was focused on gaining a share of the Boston-New England market when they included BC (something the BIG has recently done by admitting a mediocre football program in MD in order to gain the DC/Baltimore markets). Plus, BC is a terrific academic school and it fit well within the academic culture of the ACC at that time. WVU just didn't fit (and it may still not today) the culture of the ACC although the conference did compromise itself by selecting a school like Louisville from an academic perspective. That being said, I'm fine with the schools that are currently in the ACC and the ones that are coming within the next 2 years. I love having ND and I think eventually they will become a full member given the changing landscape of college football and the impending playoff format.

One last question for all of you: Even with the upcoming inclusion of ND, Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC and MD going to the BIG, is the BIG the premiere athletic and academic conference in the country? I am so tired of hearing MD administrators tout the BIG as the most presitigious (and desired to be in) conference in the country; and that it's academic reputation ranks second only to the Ivy League. This has been brough at different times over multiple threads; but I wanted to get a current idea on where people stand on this. I admit that I am extremely biased in favor of the ACC; and I recognize that the BIG has that multi-billion dollar academic consortium relationship with the University of Chicago; and that most of the universities have the presitgious AAU designation; but I still feel the ACC is on equal playing field with the BIG in prestigue and the combination of high excellence in both sports and academics. Even with MD going to the BIG and Louisville (and I'm not trying to put down Louisville in any way but merely making an objective point) coming to the ACC, The ACC schools respectively match up very well in academic rankings to the BIG. Am I wrong?

ForkFondler
03-14-2013, 11:31 AM
When the bcs tourney (inevitably) expands to 8 teams, push for auto-bids for bcs champs and at-large for the other three slots. Make sure a team not playing a full ACC slate cannot play for the ACC championship.

That'll get Notre Dame to join fully.

-jk

I think the near-term goal should be to coax ND up to seven games. That would be enough to compete for a divisional and conference championship. Get the other three teams in their pod to agree to an extra cross divisional game once every three years to make up for the one ND isn't playing. If Navy is #16, ND would only have to agree to one more game than they are on the books for now.

gocanes0506
03-14-2013, 01:38 PM
I get what you're saying about BC; but I also understand why the ACC chose BC over a school like WVU. I'm assuming that ACC was focused on gaining a share of the Boston-New England market when they included BC (something the BIG has recently done by admitting a mediocre football program in MD in order to gain the DC/Baltimore markets). Plus, BC is a terrific academic school and it fit well within the academic culture of the ACC at that time. WVU just didn't fit (and it may still not today) the culture of the ACC although the conference did compromise itself by selecting a school like Louisville from an academic perspective. That being said, I'm fine with the schools that are currently in the ACC and the ones that are coming within the next 2 years. I love having ND and I think eventually they will become a full member given the changing landscape of college football and the impending playoff format.

One last question for all of you: Even with the upcoming inclusion of ND, Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC and MD going to the BIG, is the BIG the premiere athletic and academic conference in the country? I am so tired of hearing MD administrators tout the BIG as the most presitigious (and desired to be in) conference in the country; and that it's academic reputation ranks second only to the Ivy League. This has been brough at different times over multiple threads; but I wanted to get a current idea on where people stand on this. I admit that I am extremely biased in favor of the ACC; and I recognize that the BIG has that multi-billion dollar academic consortium relationship with the University of Chicago; and that most of the universities have the presitgious AAU designation; but I still feel the ACC is on equal playing field with the BIG in prestigue and the combination of high excellence in both sports and academics. Even with MD going to the BIG and Louisville (and I'm not trying to put down Louisville in any way but merely making an objective point) coming to the ACC, The ACC schools respectively match up very well in academic rankings to the BIG. Am I wrong?

Its an interesting point. Here is the matchup
AAU membership
Big "10" Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern. They will include 2 in Maryland and Rutgers. The only non member is Nebraska (they were until the year they joined the conference).
ACC UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Maryland of course we are losing Maryland and Syracuse was a former member.

Although AAU membership is not the measurement of academia it would take forever to compare all the stats.

Athletic budgets:
The ACC's top team, UNC, would only have been the 8th highest budget in the Big. The lowest reported athletic budget in FY12 in the Big was 61.5 million. Northwestern wasnt reported and I expect there budget was much lower. Only UNC, Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia's were higher. Disclaimer: Duke, Miami, BC, and WF didnt report. (Source: sports business journal).

Athletic success:
ACC total NCAA championships is 124
Big 10 265

These are of June 2012 and not counting championships before joining the conference. I would say the big has taking over as the best bball conference. The Big has had recent success in women's field hockey and wrestling. They haven't had a men's bball championship since 2000. The ACC has had 5 since then.

The argument for who is best athletically based on numbers wouldn't be argument. We will go back 20 years for measurement of recent success. ACC as 72 championships since then (over 50% of the conference total). 73 for the Big. So over 60 percent of theres are from older than 93. Also a lot of theres were from 70 and prior when they were the only conference worth mentioning in sports. The Big also participates in many more sports than the ACC.

Class of '94
03-14-2013, 03:15 PM
Its an interesting point. Here is the matchup
AAU membership
Big "10" Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern. They will include 2 in Maryland and Rutgers. The only non member is Nebraska (they were until the year they joined the conference).
ACC UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Maryland of course we are losing Maryland and Syracuse was a former member.

Although AAU membership is not the measurement of academia it would take forever to compare all the stats.

Athletic budgets:
The ACC's top team, UNC, would only have been the 8th highest budget in the Big. The lowest reported athletic budget in FY12 in the Big was 61.5 million. Northwestern wasnt reported and I expect there budget was much lower. Only UNC, Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia's were higher. Disclaimer: Duke, Miami, BC, and WF didnt report. (Source: sports business journal).

Athletic success:
ACC total NCAA championships is 124
Big 10 265

These are of June 2012 and not counting championships before joining the conference. I would say the big has taking over as the best bball conference. The Big has had recent success in women's field hockey and wrestling. They haven't had a men's bball championship since 2000. The ACC has had 5 since then.

The argument for who is best athletically based on numbers wouldn't be argument. We will go back 20 years for measurement of recent success. ACC as 72 championships since then (over 50% of the conference total). 73 for the Big. So over 60 percent of theres are from older than 93. Also a lot of theres were from 70 and prior when they were the only conference worth mentioning in sports. The Big also participates in many more sports than the ACC.

Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.

gocanes0506
03-14-2013, 03:43 PM
Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.

Here are the sports in each conference

ACC
Basketball x 2, cross country x 2, field hockey, football, soccer x 2, volleyball, swimming x 2, indoor track x 2, wrestling, baseball, golf x 2, lacrosse x 2, rowing, softball, track x 2, tennis x 2. 25.

Big

Same lineup with lacrosse substituted by gymnastics.

So I was wrong in the fact the current sports are not different numbers. Of course the Big has championships in other sports like sychronized swimming and trampoline. I am unable to quickly find the lineup of participation by sport by year to see if they once dwarfed the ACC in sports participation.

Mudge
03-14-2013, 08:27 PM
Because nobody but people attached to the four schools gives a rat's patoot about the four of them being connected. They're all in two TV markets. Two are small private schools. And none of them are good at football. The Big 4 schools being connected to each other is irrelevant to over 90% of the American populace, who pay attention to sports, not to mention the folks who don't.

While all of what you say above is true, I didn't ask why everyone else wouldn't care about the old Big Four being together-- I asked why he (the poster who, from his posting here, may be reasonably supposed to be "attached to [one of] the four schools", and thus would seemingly be aware of and/or care about ACC tradition) did not at least try to honor that modest tradition by putting those four schools together.

Mudge
03-14-2013, 08:44 PM
Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.

I think the Big 10 has just started (or is starting) to play hockey-- the Big 10 members in other college hockey conferences withdrew, because the Big 10 now has enough members playing hockey to have their own league.