From tigernet:

http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=10633

I thought he did a good job addressing things.

I'm sure several will say he's lying (the Clemson fans are already).

He had a good point about ESPN3 being like a channel in a few year w/ the smart tv options. I can see it getting added to things like apple tv and it is already available through some game devices.


Also he said we could have had a channel and looked into it a lot and decided not to at this time but that in the future we could start one with ESPN if we chose to go that route.

I can't speak about FSU, but I live close enough to Clemson to be able to pick up WCCP on my car radio most of the time (why is the reception so much better in my car than my house? oh, well). There is a deep-seated hatred for John Swofford and it can be traced back to that last question about the extra year of probation back in the 80's. It may not be possible to really appease Clemson fans without replacing the commissioner for that reason.

There are also a lot of people associated with Clemson who are definitely "beating the war drums". Mickey Plyler on WCCP FM. The website Cemetery Hill. These guys are doing their best to whip up the fan base into a Big 12 frenzy.

There are also voices of reason. I think Tigernet is more balanced. Walt Deptula on WCCP FM (3 PM to 7PM) is also fairly balanced. Hopefully Tiger fans will listen to reason instead of letting an old feud rule the day.

I did not know that all of the teams that participate in Conference championships did not have to pay their own expenses, did you?

(05-26-2012 08:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  I did not know that all of the teams that participate in Conference championships did not have to pay their own expenses, did you?

I knew that about the ACC, I didn't know it was different than other conferences.

It speaks volumes about how nervous the ACC is that Swofford would sit down with a group of Clemson reporters (and it was a group, not a one-on-one) considering that most of them have been trying to get an interview with him for months and the ACC repeatedly has given them the cold shoulder.

Here's TCI's version:
The Clemson Insider

Here's one item not covered in Hood's piece:

Quote:One of the concerns of many Clemson fans is the move to nine league football games. Scheduling series with teams like Georgia will be more difficult with the nine league games. With Clemson and others talking about concerns about the football emphasis and boards meeting to say they will listen to other conferences are there things with the ACC that might change to make it more attractive to the football schools?

Commissioner Swofford: Well anything can change. There are very few things that are in concrete other than equal revenue sharing in our league as that is such a fundamental part of who we are. But that is an operational kind of decision. The majority of our schools really wanted to play nine games. Television prefers that. Television doesn’t make that decision but that has been their preference. It makes it a little harder depending on how you want to schedule to play home and home series. It is easy to play one home and home but when and it depends on how many home games you want to have. I know Clemson would like to have seven every year for revenue. We have some other schools that would like to have seven. Some of our schools are fine with seven some years and six some years. So I think that is probably something we will continue to look at. We are looking at a way to help Clemson in particular and a couple of other schools that want to play more than one home and home which means you want to play a higher level team. Different schools have different scheduling philosophies in regard to that. Having nine admittedly make for complicated scheduling. It makes for more complicated scheduling for the conference for that matter.

The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game. Anything other than that is either going to mean we only play 1 high profile OOC game every year (South Carolina) or else we will play a second, but lose revenue because of losing the 7th game. People keep talking about television demanding it....if the rest of the conference would sack up and schedule decent teams (I'm looking at you NC State in particular) then TV would lose anything. Who do you think has a better chance of being on ESPN/ESPN2.....Clemson vs Oklahoma State or Clemson vs Duke?

Sounds pretty direct to me....what's is your complaint?
Carolina wants to play 7 home games every year too.
You are right about State's schedule.......it stinks every year.

(05-28-2012 08:34 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  It speaks volumes about how nervous the ACC is that Swofford would sit down with a group of Clemson reporters (and it was a group, not a one-on-one) considering that most of them have been trying to get an interview with him for months and the ACC repeatedly has given them the cold shoulder.

Here's TCI's version:
The Clemson Insider

Here's one item not covered in Hood's piece:

Quote:One of the concerns of many Clemson fans is the move to nine league football games. Scheduling series with teams like Georgia will be more difficult with the nine league games. With Clemson and others talking about concerns about the football emphasis and boards meeting to say they will listen to other conferences are there things with the ACC that might change to make it more attractive to the football schools?

Commissioner Swofford: Well anything can change. There are very few things that are in concrete other than equal revenue sharing in our league as that is such a fundamental part of who we are. But that is an operational kind of decision. The majority of our schools really wanted to play nine games. Television prefers that. Television doesn’t make that decision but that has been their preference. It makes it a little harder depending on how you want to schedule to play home and home series. It is easy to play one home and home but when and it depends on how many home games you want to have. I know Clemson would like to have seven every year for revenue. We have some other schools that would like to have seven. Some of our schools are fine with seven some years and six some years. So I think that is probably something we will continue to look at. We are looking at a way to help Clemson in particular and a couple of other schools that want to play more than one home and home which means you want to play a higher level team. Different schools have different scheduling philosophies in regard to that. Having nine admittedly make for complicated scheduling. It makes for more complicated scheduling for the conference for that matter.

The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game. Anything other than that is either going to mean we only play 1 high profile OOC game every year (South Carolina) or else we will play a second, but lose revenue because of losing the 7th game. People keep talking about television demanding it....if the rest of the conference would sack up and schedule decent teams (I'm looking at you NC State in particular) then TV would lose anything. Who do you think has a better chance of being on ESPN/ESPN2.....Clemson vs Oklahoma State or Clemson vs Duke?

------------------------
"The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game."


8 versus 9 games:

With 14 teams, each team is playing 6 teams within the division and one crossover.

I believe Clemson is scheduled to play FSU, NCSU, Wake, Maryland, BC, SU with GT as the crossover.

The other teams are Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, Pitt.

If there are 8 games per year, it takes Clemson and everyone else 6 years to play teams in the other division. If there are 9 games, it takes 3 years.

Not sure why you believe the decision of the conference members to play each other more frequently is "dumb whatever".

Clemson would be playing 2 of Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Pitt and yes Duke each year.

I would be surprised if Clemson would have little interest playing Miami, VT and UVA, UNC, Pitt more frequently than once every 6 years.

(05-28-2012 09:45 AM)sufan Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 08:34 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  It speaks volumes about how nervous the ACC is that Swofford would sit down with a group of Clemson reporters (and it was a group, not a one-on-one) considering that most of them have been trying to get an interview with him for months and the ACC repeatedly has given them the cold shoulder.

Here's TCI's version:
The Clemson Insider

Here's one item not covered in Hood's piece:

Quote:One of the concerns of many Clemson fans is the move to nine league football games. Scheduling series with teams like Georgia will be more difficult with the nine league games. With Clemson and others talking about concerns about the football emphasis and boards meeting to say they will listen to other conferences are there things with the ACC that might change to make it more attractive to the football schools?

Commissioner Swofford: Well anything can change. There are very few things that are in concrete other than equal revenue sharing in our league as that is such a fundamental part of who we are. But that is an operational kind of decision. The majority of our schools really wanted to play nine games. Television prefers that. Television doesn’t make that decision but that has been their preference. It makes it a little harder depending on how you want to schedule to play home and home series. It is easy to play one home and home but when and it depends on how many home games you want to have. I know Clemson would like to have seven every year for revenue. We have some other schools that would like to have seven. Some of our schools are fine with seven some years and six some years. So I think that is probably something we will continue to look at. We are looking at a way to help Clemson in particular and a couple of other schools that want to play more than one home and home which means you want to play a higher level team. Different schools have different scheduling philosophies in regard to that. Having nine admittedly make for complicated scheduling. It makes for more complicated scheduling for the conference for that matter.

The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game. Anything other than that is either going to mean we only play 1 high profile OOC game every year (South Carolina) or else we will play a second, but lose revenue because of losing the 7th game. People keep talking about television demanding it....if the rest of the conference would sack up and schedule decent teams (I'm looking at you NC State in particular) then TV would lose anything. Who do you think has a better chance of being on ESPN/ESPN2.....Clemson vs Oklahoma State or Clemson vs Duke?

------------------------
"The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game."


8 versus 9 games:

With 14 teams, each team is playing 6 teams within the division and one crossover.

I believe Clemson is scheduled to play FSU, NCSU, Wake, Maryland, BC, SU with GT as the crossover.

The other teams are Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, Pitt.

If there are 8 games per year, it takes Clemson and everyone else 6 years to play teams in the other division. If there are 9 games, it takes 3 years.

Not sure why you believe the decision of the conference members to play each other more frequently is "dumb whatever".

Clemson would be playing 2 of Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Pitt and yes Duke each year.

I would be surprised if Clemson would have little interest playing Miami, VT and UVA, UNC, Pitt more frequently than once every 6 years.

The only teams we have any desire to play in that grouping are Miami and VT. Everybody else is either a proven attendance drain or someone we have no history with. We went 122 years with only playing Pitt once, I'm pretty sure we can live with only playing the once every 6 years.

When the national perception is the ACC is weak in football we need to play and win games against the other power conferences. Clemson made the decision a few years back that we were going to play 2 BCS OOC games a year, South Carolina and an additional, in an effort to strengthen our schedule to make up for the ACC's weakness. These efforts are being sabotaged by being forced to add another piss poor ACC team to the schedule. We have to decide if we want a weaker schedule and the revenue generated by the 7th home game, or if we want to strengthen our schedule, lose the revenue, and lose the economic boost to the Clemson, SC economy provided by the 7th game. All for what? A game that 2 out of 7 cycles we will even give a damn about.

This was a decision made because the 4 NC schools will not play their unprotected rival as often, simple as that. ESPN isn't licking it's chops thinking about NC State and Duke playing more often, so that's total BS right there. I could see them being interested if there were more teams worth a damn in this conference, but there aren't. If the little 4 want to play more often then they need to schedule each other OOC. Simple as that.

(05-28-2012 10:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  When the national perception is the ACC is weak in football we need to play and win games against the other power conferences.

Clemson has had 30 years to do so. Why is it of a sudden so important? You complain constantly about weak teams and refer to Clemson history yet conveniently ignore other teams' history.

Let me help out a conference mate.

Syracuse went 11- 0 in 1987, played Auburn in the Sugar Bowl and had HC Dick McPherson not played a prevent defense (Coach Mac's statement), would have won the NC. Syracuse was relevent in football for some time to come. Coach P slacked off in his latter years and Syracuse replaced hium with GRob, for which we are still recovering, but headed in the right direction.

A few wins of note from the 80's to the present:

09-29-1984 17 Nebraska 9
10-17-1987 48 Penn St. 21
01-02-1989 23 Louisiana St. 10
12-30-1989 19 Georgia 18
09-21-1991 38 Florida 21 This is the last game Florida played an OOC game out of state!
01-01-1992 24 Ohio St. 17
09-12-1992 31 Texas 21
01-01-1993 26 Colorado 22
01-01-1996 41 Clemson (SC) 0 (Be careful about complaining about our competition, a win is a win and that one is pretty convincing!)
09-12-1998 38 Michigan 28 (In the Big House!)
09-22-2001 31 Auburn (AL) 14
12-06-2003 38 Notre Dame (IN) 12

I did not include all wins, only big name teams. No middle of the pack teams. No conference mates. I did not include all bowl wins, either. The point is to show other schools play big boys and win, too, in spite of the claims that Clemson is the only ACC school that is dedicated to football (obviously they forgt that FSU owned them for more than a decade).

Syracuse plays the big boys when they can. Syracuse usually has a tough schedule by any account. We do not schedule games using the Rutgers/Beamer method.

I know other ACC schools play big name teams and are dedicated to football. Clemson is not on an island. The majority of schools are dedicated to football but have been down. Several are on the rise again.

Obviously an 8 game conference schedule is no good if you play the sisters of the poor the other 4 games. Perhaps a good solution for all would be a combination of 3 ideas previously posted here:

1) Arrange with the SEC for each SEC team to play one ACC team home & away every year. Keep the 4 permanent rivals (FSU/UF, GT/GA, CU/SC, WF/Van) and pair up the other 10 (or rotate the other 10 - I don't care as long as it's fair to the ACC and we have a realistic shot at going 7-7 or better).
2) With #1 in place, drop back to 8 conference games, knowing you have a guaranteed 9th BCS game every year.
3) Redo divisions so that Clemson plays FSU, GT, and VT every year - there'll be no more complaints of weak schedule, but if they want to make it even tougher they can add a 5th BCS game like UGa.

Personally, I think changing divisions to guarantee FSU, GT, VT and SC every year is enough, but if Clemson really wants another tough opponent that's ok with me. BTW, that N/S division would also give FSU a schedule of Miami, GT, Clemson, and FLorida every year - but again, if 4 tough games isn't enough we could go 8 conference games so they could get a 5th tough opponent. I just think the problem right now is that some years those teams only get 3 tough games (2 ACC + 1 SEC) which isn't enough.

CatDaddy, maybe you can answer - how many tough games per year do you really want?

(05-28-2012 11:52 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 10:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  When the national perception is the ACC is weak in football we need to play and win games against the other power conferences.

Clemson has had 30 years to do so. Why is it of a sudden so important? You complain constantly about weak teams and refer to Clemson history yet conveniently ignore other teams' history.

Let me help out a conference mate.

Syracuse went 11- 0 in 1987, played Auburn in the Sugar Bowl and had HC Dick McPherson not played a prevent defense (Coach Mac's statement), would have won the NC. Syracuse was relevent in football for some time to come. Coach P slacked off in his latter years and Syracuse replaced hium with GRob, for which we are still recovering, but headed in the right direction.

A few wins of note from the 80's to the present:

09-29-1984 17 Nebraska 9
10-17-1987 48 Penn St. 21
01-02-1989 23 Louisiana St. 10
12-30-1989 19 Georgia 18
09-21-1991 38 Florida 21 This is the last game Florida played an OOC game out of state!
01-01-1992 24 Ohio St. 17
09-12-1992 31 Texas 21
01-01-1993 26 Colorado 22
01-01-1996 41 Clemson (SC) 0 (Be careful about complaining about our competition, a win is a win and that one is pretty convincing!)
09-12-1998 38 Michigan 28 (In the Big House!)
09-22-2001 31 Auburn (AL) 14
12-06-2003 38 Notre Dame (IN) 12

I did not include all wins, only big name teams. No middle of the pack teams. No conference mates. I did not include all bowl wins, either. The point is to show other schools play big boys and win, too, in spite of the claims that Clemson is the only ACC school that is dedicated to football (obviously they forgt that FSU owned them for more than a decade).

Syracuse plays the big boys when they can. Syracuse usually has a tough schedule by any account. We do not schedule games using the Rutgers/Beamer method.

I know other ACC schools play big name teams and are dedicated to football. Clemson is not on an island. The majority of schools are dedicated to football but have been down. Several are on the rise again.

Nice rant. What it has to do with the statement of mine you quoted above is beyond me, but nice rant nonetheless.

If you'd pay attention to what I've posted many, many times I readily admit Clemson made it's own bed from 1990-2008. I've never blamed the ACC for Clemson sucking in a major way. I have said time and time again that we hurt ourselves.

Doesn't change the fact that outside of 4 to 5 programs the ACC simply hasn't, and despite the current mantra that "football matters" probably will not put a priority on fielding competitive football teams year in and year out. Y'all can tell Clemson and FSU "Shut up and win" all you want....in the end the battleship anchors we have at the bottom of the conference drag everybody else down. In the near future when you have Oregon, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech all sitting undefeated at the end of the regular season and championship games who do you think is going to be the program left out of the four team playoff? A team from the four conferences that even their dregs have decent seasons now and then or the team from a conference with a team who hasn't sniffed a bowl game in the lifetime of this year's recruits?


Everybody, especially the goat fans, like to bag on Clemson basketball, but other than the Larry Shyatt years we have been a fairly regular NCAA tournament participant. For a school where basketball comes in a close 3rd behind baseball that's pretty good, and better than some schools in this conference can say who have a basketball first mentality.

(05-28-2012 10:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 09:45 AM)sufan Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 08:34 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  It speaks volumes about how nervous the ACC is that Swofford would sit down with a group of Clemson reporters (and it was a group, not a one-on-one) considering that most of them have been trying to get an interview with him for months and the ACC repeatedly has given them the cold shoulder.

Here's TCI's version:
The Clemson Insider

Here's one item not covered in Hood's piece:

Quote:One of the concerns of many Clemson fans is the move to nine league football games. Scheduling series with teams like Georgia will be more difficult with the nine league games. With Clemson and others talking about concerns about the football emphasis and boards meeting to say they will listen to other conferences are there things with the ACC that might change to make it more attractive to the football schools?

Commissioner Swofford: Well anything can change. There are very few things that are in concrete other than equal revenue sharing in our league as that is such a fundamental part of who we are. But that is an operational kind of decision. The majority of our schools really wanted to play nine games. Television prefers that. Television doesn’t make that decision but that has been their preference. It makes it a little harder depending on how you want to schedule to play home and home series. It is easy to play one home and home but when and it depends on how many home games you want to have. I know Clemson would like to have seven every year for revenue. We have some other schools that would like to have seven. Some of our schools are fine with seven some years and six some years. So I think that is probably something we will continue to look at. We are looking at a way to help Clemson in particular and a couple of other schools that want to play more than one home and home which means you want to play a higher level team. Different schools have different scheduling philosophies in regard to that. Having nine admittedly make for complicated scheduling. It makes for more complicated scheduling for the conference for that matter.

The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game. Anything other than that is either going to mean we only play 1 high profile OOC game every year (South Carolina) or else we will play a second, but lose revenue because of losing the 7th game. People keep talking about television demanding it....if the rest of the conference would sack up and schedule decent teams (I'm looking at you NC State in particular) then TV would lose anything. Who do you think has a better chance of being on ESPN/ESPN2.....Clemson vs Oklahoma State or Clemson vs Duke?

------------------------
"The only way you are going to help Clemson is to drop the dumb*** 9th conference game."


8 versus 9 games:

With 14 teams, each team is playing 6 teams within the division and one crossover.

I believe Clemson is scheduled to play FSU, NCSU, Wake, Maryland, BC, SU with GT as the crossover.

The other teams are Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, Pitt.

If there are 8 games per year, it takes Clemson and everyone else 6 years to play teams in the other division. If there are 9 games, it takes 3 years.

Not sure why you believe the decision of the conference members to play each other more frequently is "dumb whatever".

Clemson would be playing 2 of Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, Pitt and yes Duke each year.

I would be surprised if Clemson would have little interest playing Miami, VT and UVA, UNC, Pitt more frequently than once every 6 years.

The only teams we have any desire to play in that grouping are Miami and VT. Everybody else is either a proven attendance drain or someone we have no history with. We went 122 years with only playing Pitt once, I'm pretty sure we can live with only playing the once every 6 years.

When the national perception is the ACC is weak in football we need to play and win games against the other power conferences. Clemson made the decision a few years back that we were going to play 2 BCS OOC games a year, South Carolina and an additional, in an effort to strengthen our schedule to make up for the ACC's weakness. These efforts are being sabotaged by being forced to add another piss poor ACC team to the schedule. We have to decide if we want a weaker schedule and the revenue generated by the 7th home game, or if we want to strengthen our schedule, lose the revenue, and lose the economic boost to the Clemson, SC economy provided by the 7th game. All for what? A game that 2 out of 7 cycles we will even give a damn about.

This was a decision made because the 4 NC schools will not play their unprotected rival as often, simple as that. ESPN isn't licking it's chops thinking about NC State and Duke playing more often, so that's total BS right there. I could see them being interested if there were more teams worth a damn in this conference, but there aren't. If the little 4 want to play more often then they need to schedule each other OOC. Simple as that.

What is an unprotected rival?

(05-28-2012 01:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is an unprotected rival?

The member of the little 4 that:

A. isn't in your division
and
B. isn't your permanent cross division rival

If y'all want to play Wake more often, play them instead of importing a FCS team like Furman or McNeese State.

(05-28-2012 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Obviously an 8 game conference schedule is no good if you play the sisters of the poor the other 4 games. Perhaps a good solution for all would be a combination of 3 ideas previously posted here:

1) Arrange with the SEC for each SEC team to play one ACC team home & away every year. Keep the 4 permanent rivals (FSU/UF, GT/GA, CU/SC, WF/Van) and pair up the other 10 (or rotate the other 10 - I don't care as long as it's fair to the ACC and we have a realistic shot at going 7-7 or better).
2) With #1 in place, drop back to 8 conference games, knowing you have a guaranteed 9th BCS game every year.
3) Redo divisions so that Clemson plays FSU, GT, and VT every year - there'll be no more complaints of weak schedule, but if they want to make it even tougher they can add a 5th BCS game like UGa.

Personally, I think changing divisions to guarantee FSU, GT, VT and SC every year is enough, but if Clemson really wants another tough opponent that's ok with me. BTW, that N/S division would also give FSU a schedule of Miami, GT, Clemson, and FLorida every year - but again, if 4 tough games isn't enough we could go 8 conference games so they could get a 5th tough opponent. I just think the problem right now is that some years those teams only get 3 tough games (2 ACC + 1 SEC) which isn't enough.

CatDaddy, maybe you can answer - how many tough games per year do you really want?

That would be somewhat better, but still wouldn't provide the SOS boost by playing a decent team from the SEC, Big XII etc. because you still have to account for the "Duke factor" hurting SOS.

I find it ironic that a fan of a school whose OOC schedule over the past 5 years have included:

2007 - Louisiana-Monroe and Furman
2008 - Citadel and SC State
2009 - Middle Tenn St and Coastal Carolina
2010 - North Texas and Presbyterian
2011 - Troy and Wofford

is now concerned about SOS?!?

Cheers,
Neil

(05-28-2012 01:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I find it ironic that a fan of a school whose OOC schedule over the past 5 years have included:

2007 - Louisiana-Monroe and Furman
2008 - Citadel and SC State
2009 - Middle Tenn St and Coastal Carolina
2010 - North Texas and Presbyterian
2011 - Troy and Wofford

is now concerned about SOS?!?

Cheers,
Neil

We have at minimum one BCS OOC game every single year with South Carolina. We also have at least one in-state FCS team every year (as does South Carolina) at the request of our General Assembly. Every year Clemson starts out with leeway to schedule only two, soon to be one because of the BS 9th ACC game, OOC opponent because of in-state commitments.

2007 - The second half of a home and home that was postponed by Auburn at the last minute. La-Monroe was the only FBS team who agreed to play.
Central Michigan, who you also missed, was the MAC team sent to replace Temple, who had to drop the 3rd game of a three game series we signed with them when the Big East kicked them out. CMU was the MAC Champion that year.

2008 - I noticed you forgot Alabama. Wish I could.
FWIW we played SC State only after La Tech bought out of the game we were supposed to play in Shreveport to play Army in West Point. The game was bought out in mid-late Feb, and there was no other FBS team with an available opening. (FWIW GT also had 2 FCS games that year for the same reason...Army bought out of the GT game to play La Tech)
We dropped a one and done with Central Florida to play Alabama in Atlanta.

2009 - Notice you forgot TCU.
BTW, MTSU went 10-3 that year, only losing to us , Troy, and Mississippi State. They did beat Maryland though.

2010 - Notice you forgot Auburn..you know, the National Champs that year? Took 'em to overtime.

2011 - Notice you forgot Auburn.

Also, our scheduling philosophy was changing under Swinney. Bowden just wanted to assure 6 wins. Swinney, coming from Alabama as a player and a coach, knows that playing tougher competition, and in the ACC that means OOC, means bigger gates and it prepares your team for higher profile postseason play. The past two years the schedules have been under the Swinney plan, as are the UGA series (that we are going to lose a home game and revenue to play) and the upcoming series we would have had against Oklahoma State and other SEC teams. We are going to have to decide to go further in the hole to South Carolina revenue wise by always having just 6 home football games or just play one interesting OOC game to ensure we have 7 at home.

(05-28-2012 02:37 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 01:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I find it ironic that a fan of a school whose OOC schedule over the past 5 years have included:

2007 - Louisiana-Monroe and Furman
2008 - Citadel and SC State
2009 - Middle Tenn St and Coastal Carolina
2010 - North Texas and Presbyterian
2011 - Troy and Wofford

is now concerned about SOS?!?

Cheers,
Neil

We have at minimum one BCS OOC game every single year with South Carolina. We also have at least one in-state FCS team every year (as does South Carolina) at the request of our General Assembly. Every year Clemson starts out with leeway to schedule only two, soon to be one because of the BS 9th ACC game, OOC opponent because of in-state commitments.

2007 - The second half of a home and home that was postponed by Auburn at the last minute. La-Monroe was the only FBS team who agreed to play.
Central Michigan, who you also missed, was the MAC team sent to replace Temple, who had to drop the 3rd game of a three game series we signed with them when the Big East kicked them out. CMU was the MAC Champion that year.

2008 - I noticed you forgot Alabama. Wish I could.
FWIW we played SC State only after La Tech bought out of the game we were supposed to play in Shreveport to play Army in West Point. The game was bought out in mid-late Feb, and there was no other FBS team with an available opening. (FWIW GT also had 2 FCS games that year for the same reason...Army bought out of the GT game to play La Tech)
We dropped a one and done with Central Florida to play Alabama in Atlanta.

2009 - Notice you forgot TCU.
BTW, MTSU went 10-3 that year, only losing to us , Troy, and Mississippi State. They did beat Maryland though.

2010 - Notice you forgot Auburn..you know, the National Champs that year? Took 'em to overtime.

2011 - Notice you forgot Auburn.

Also, our scheduling philosophy was changing under Swinney. Bowden just wanted to assure 6 wins. Swinney, coming from Alabama as a player and a coach, knows that playing tougher competition, and in the ACC that means OOC, means bigger gates and it prepares your team for higher profile postseason play. The past two years the schedules have been under the Swinney plan, as are the UGA series (that we are going to lose a home game and revenue to play) and the upcoming series we would have had against Oklahoma State and other SEC teams. We are going to have to decide to go further in the hole to South Carolina revenue wise by always having just 6 home football games or just play one interesting OOC game to ensure we have 7 at home.

You're missing your own point. You claim to be worried about SOS and having Duke on your schedule as the 9th team will hurt that. Yet Duke is no worse, probably better, than any of the teams I listed above. May not be in terms of attendance, I don't know, but in terms of SOS I'm pretty sure having Duke on your schedule and losing one of the above will actually help, especially since SOS includes how well the opponent's opponents are playing.

Obviously I wouldn't list the likes of Auburn or Alabama in terms of hurting SOS. I realize you may not have much respect for SU fans, but many do know college football.

You do realize that the Big 12 will require 9 conference games as well, right? It looks like only the BiG and SEC will try and retain the 8 game conference schedule and I believe that is the main reason why Slive says going to 14 is troublesome.

Cheers,
Neil

Touche'

(05-28-2012 02:50 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 02:37 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 01:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I find it ironic that a fan of a school whose OOC schedule over the past 5 years have included:

2007 - Louisiana-Monroe and Furman
2008 - Citadel and SC State
2009 - Middle Tenn St and Coastal Carolina
2010 - North Texas and Presbyterian
2011 - Troy and Wofford

is now concerned about SOS?!?

Cheers,
Neil

We have at minimum one BCS OOC game every single year with South Carolina. We also have at least one in-state FCS team every year (as does South Carolina) at the request of our General Assembly. Every year Clemson starts out with leeway to schedule only two, soon to be one because of the BS 9th ACC game, OOC opponent because of in-state commitments.

2007 - The second half of a home and home that was postponed by Auburn at the last minute. La-Monroe was the only FBS team who agreed to play.
Central Michigan, who you also missed, was the MAC team sent to replace Temple, who had to drop the 3rd game of a three game series we signed with them when the Big East kicked them out. CMU was the MAC Champion that year.

2008 - I noticed you forgot Alabama. Wish I could.
FWIW we played SC State only after La Tech bought out of the game we were supposed to play in Shreveport to play Army in West Point. The game was bought out in mid-late Feb, and there was no other FBS team with an available opening. (FWIW GT also had 2 FCS games that year for the same reason...Army bought out of the GT game to play La Tech)
We dropped a one and done with Central Florida to play Alabama in Atlanta.

2009 - Notice you forgot TCU.
BTW, MTSU went 10-3 that year, only losing to us , Troy, and Mississippi State. They did beat Maryland though.

2010 - Notice you forgot Auburn..you know, the National Champs that year? Took 'em to overtime.

2011 - Notice you forgot Auburn.

Also, our scheduling philosophy was changing under Swinney. Bowden just wanted to assure 6 wins. Swinney, coming from Alabama as a player and a coach, knows that playing tougher competition, and in the ACC that means OOC, means bigger gates and it prepares your team for higher profile postseason play. The past two years the schedules have been under the Swinney plan, as are the UGA series (that we are going to lose a home game and revenue to play) and the upcoming series we would have had against Oklahoma State and other SEC teams. We are going to have to decide to go further in the hole to South Carolina revenue wise by always having just 6 home football games or just play one interesting OOC game to ensure we have 7 at home.

You're missing your own point. You claim to be worried about SOS and having Duke on your schedule as the 9th team will hurt that. Yet Duke is no worse, probably better, than any of the teams I listed above. May not be in terms of attendance, I don't know, but in terms of SOS I'm pretty sure having Duke on your schedule and losing one of the above will actually help, especially since SOS includes how well the opponent's opponents are playing.

Obviously I wouldn't list the likes of Auburn or Alabama in terms of hurting SOS. I realize you may not have much respect for SU fans, but many do know college football.

You do realize that the Big 12 will require 9 conference games as well, right? It looks like only the BiG and SEC will try and retain the 8 game conference schedule and I believe that is the main reason why Slive says going to 14 is troublesome.

Cheers,
Neil

No, you aren't getting it.

With the 9th ACC game the only thing that is going to change after the UGA series is there will no longer be a SOS booster like Alabama, Auburn, TCU, Oklahoma State.

Our OOC will be South Carolina H/A, in-state FCS, and the MTSU's/North Texas's/etc. In the place of the Bama/Auburn/etc. game will be the Dukes/UNCs/UVAs.

We can't, without facing severe repercussions, drop the in-state FCS game. It might as well be in the SC Code of Law because when the SC General Assembly "suggests" to a state agency that they do something, it gets done or else.

We aren't dropping South Carolina to play anybody.

We depend on the revenue generated by the 7th home game to fund the rest of the athletic department. The town of Clemson also depends on the revenue generated by anywhere from 70-85k fans coming to visit seven times a year. Remember, when Clemson has a home game it becomes the 4th highest populated city in the state of SC. We are already going to be anywhere from $8 - $15 million in revenue behind South Carolina and Georgia because of the TV contracts, bowl revenue, etc. We can't afford to give up an additional $2 million a year by only having 6 home games, especially when the facts are we get 3 assured sellouts with out current schedule...FSU, GT, and South Carolina. You find us a high profile OOC opponent each year that is willing to play us one and done at home each year and I'll quit whining. Until then realize there is a world of difference between a school who brings in 70k minimum regardless of opponent and one that can add two home games and struggle to top that number.

Now before anybody says it...I know....Syracuse will bring hordes and hordes of fans when they come. Looking at the history of fans you have had at southern bowl games...pardon me if I don't hold my breath.