I'm not a fan of the ACC scheduling agreement

I'm not a fan of the ACC scheduling agreement
by tf86 (2023-06-13 08:32:09)
Edited on 2023-06-13 08:41:21

In reply to: I thought about adding vii as well. posted by tdiddy07

Five games was unreasonable. Four games would have been more than enough and I think we should have pushed for three. We probably had to cede some room on our schedule to get the placement for basketball and olympic sports. Then again, I would have been okay with the reconstituted Big East for that purpose.

As for Point vi, that came up after the ACC had admitted Virginia Tech and Miami and before BC joined. I heard someone refer to it as a "done deal." Reading between the lines, I think ND had a deal in principle with the ACC to join that conference. The deal provided for delayed entry for football (I had heard as long as ten years) and was contingent on the ACC being able to play a conference championship game in the interim. The ACC did in fact apply to the NCAA for permission to play a conference championship game with 11 members, and was turned down (note: this was in 2004, I think the answer probably would have been different ten years later.) I think that development invalidated the deal, and the two sides couldn't reach subsequent agreement as to the timing of ND's entry. Only after that did the ACC turn to BC.