Yesterday the coaches of the ACC gathered via teleconference to discuss the possibility of the league moving to a 9-game league schedule. Of the five power conferences, three (Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12) are already playing 9 conference games annually. Most assume that the SEC will follow suit by 2016 with their new network airing this August. The ACC is discussing this dynamic again because they are in the beginning stages of exploring their own network as well. If you remember, the ACC decided to go the 9-game route after Pitt and Syracuse were added in September of 2011. However, when Notre Dame joined, the league cancelled that mandate because of the Irish’s agreement to play 5 ACC schools every season. UofL’s new conference figures to have a decision by May, when the league gathers for their annual spring meetings. Here are both sides of the 9-game argument:
*It will give the league more inventory for the potential ACC Network. All the other power leagues are doing it, why not the ACC?
*It will bolster each school’s college football playoff and access bowl resumes. (Less FCS schools on the schedules).
*Perhaps most importantly, it means more money for the ACC from ESPN. An increase of games between ACC mates equals more loot for each school.
*In the years an ACC school plays Notre Dame, it would give those schools only two slots to fill in the non-conference. You can kiss any made-for-TV non-conference games goodbye. Plus, Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech all play an in-state SEC rival. Those schools will be locked into just two non-league each year. (CardNation won’t be surprised when UK tries to weasel out of playing UofL when the SEC goes to 9).
*The ACC is looking into scrapping the divisional play, instead creating their own scheduling format. Wouldn’t that achieve compelling match-ups without having to increase to a 9-game slate?
In a few months, we should know for sure. What’s your opinion on it?