(06-07-2013 05:46 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:37 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:33 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:30 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:24 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  All I can say, Ragu, is sorry we exist. Takes mighty thick skin to come on this site sometimes as a BC fan....very little love coming our way.

By the way, BC is a football-first school. Now, football-first from a New England perspective is a bit different than the Southern definition, but, make no mistake about it....football is the #1 priority at BC.

Granted, we have SUCKED the last few years, but, I think that's mostly due to an arrogant AD who couldn't admit a mistake in hiring Spaz. Our recruiting thus far this year has been very strong so maybe we won't be down long. Thus far, BC is ranked #15 in Rivals; 13 overall commitments with 1 4* and 11 3*. I know that's not great from an FSU perspective, but, is very competitive nationally.

It's not about you existing. It is about FSU being stuck with BC. BC is fine for regional teams. They are never going to be an exciting matchup and they will never be a rivalry for FSU.

That is what some of you don't understand. College football is about regional rivalries. Are there are few historic national rivalries? Sure. ND vs USC is one. But the overwhelming majority of them are regional rivalries built from years of playing each other while being schools that are similar in some way.

So a private school in fricken Boston is about an unappealing of an annual game as you can get for a Florida school in college football.

You just can't help being wrong. Last I checked, Miami is a Florida school and they like playing BC.

Miami is a NE school housed in Florida. Again you really need to start following college football because you are really not knowledgable at all. Miami has a huge alumni base in the NE part of the US (like Boston/NY).

Miami is New York with warm weather. It isn't the deep South like FSU. 2 different cultures.

You said Florida school. Miami is a school in Florida. I don't care if they like playing NE schools.

Just get over your issues. BC is staying on the schedule and it looks like alot of FSU fans are completely fine with it

FSU fans overwhelmingly don't like the BC game. Again you need to do some research on college football. You are clearly not a very knowledgeable fan.

(06-07-2013 05:52 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:35 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:32 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:28 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Everything we talked about had to do with the divisions. It is his fault that all his points were proven wrong.

I don't care if people complain about me. It's a message board. You don't matter to me and I don't matter to you.

My fault? I'm not the one whining about things I can't change. And I don't think you proved me wrong at all.

You said GT/FSU barely played before FSU got in the ACC. I showed you that GT/VA met half the times (4 to 8) before GT entered the ACC.

You said BC matters to FSU when they are good and pointed to the 80 K attendance in 2006. I said FSU has a lot of high attendance numbers. You defeated your own point when you cited BC from last year having around the same exact numbers . Has a lot more to do with FSU fans caring about FSU rather than BC.

Then you acted like BC and GT were similar opponents in regards to FSU which couldnt' be further from the truth. Again learn about regional rivalries in college football.

Yeah I'd say your points were shot down pretty good.

I only brought up GT/FSU because you make it sound like there's some historical rivalry that the ACC isn't allowing to happen. The fact of the matter is there is no rivalry.

You said FSU has high numbers and I showed you additional games where they didn't. BC even outdrew Clemson one year. Please FSU isn't selling out all their home games. When BC is good sellout. When they are not good, not a sellout but still pretty high.

Any administrator at FSU opposed to playing BC? No.

The difference was like 2k for the 2 BC games you brought up!

GT/UVA wasn't a historical rivalry either. Now it is. They played half the times that FSU/GT played before becoming conference mates. And VT played GT once before 2004. People say that already is looking like a brewing rivalry. Gee do you think FSU/GT could become a rivalry too. Of course.

Maybe. But so can FSU and BC. You don't have to be regional to be a rivalry. Notre Dame has rivals all over the place. FSU will build a rivalry with Louisville. GT has been replaced.

So you are going to completely ignore the article that says the President wanted divisional changes? This is why I wanted you to do the research. Because you are the one that needs to gain knowledge on college football.

You ask for proof on the school wanting changes in divisions and then when it is presented, you continue to spout off that they dont

(06-07-2013 05:55 PM)Ragu Wrote:  So you are going to completely ignore the article that says the President wanted divisional changes? This is why I wanted you to do the research. Because you are the one that needs to gain knowledge on college football.

I guess you can't read because I commented on this a few threads up. I saw where Barron floated the idea of GT to cut down on travel. This was pre-Louisville. I don't hear him saying that now.

Why don't you list all of the national rivalries vs the regional rivalries. See which wins.

Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they aren't in a conference and play a national schedule. That said, their only huge rivalry across the country is with USC.

The fact that you think BC/FSU has as much potential as GT/FSU shows how unknowledgeable you truly are.

(06-07-2013 05:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  He never said they were unhappy. All he said was it would be nice to be in the SEC. Just didn't sound right with everything else going on.

Ah, thanks that made the search work.

http://mrsec.com/2013/03/fsu-a-d-spetman...d-the-sec/

“Unless you bring in a revenue for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in. That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us? They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.”

Maybe unfortunate due to the timing as you say, but I see the above as being very realistic rather than damaging in any way.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 05:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:55 PM)Ragu Wrote:  So you are going to completely ignore the article that says the President wanted divisional changes? This is why I wanted you to do the research. Because you are the one that needs to gain knowledge on college football.

I guess you can't read because I commented on this a few threads up. I saw where Barron floated the idea of GT to cut down on travel. This was pre-Louisville. I don't hear him saying that now.

More than just GT. They talked about wanting geographical divisions. And they talked about UVA shooting it down. Plenty know about this. When you actually learn about college football maybe you can actually contribute intelligently.

The GOR is signed now. Any talks about this kind of stuff are going to be done behind closed doors. But if you think FSU thinks Louisville is equal to GT as an opponent you are very stupid.

(06-07-2013 05:30 PM)Ragu Wrote:  That is what some of you don't understand. College football is about regional rivalries. Are there are few historic national rivalries? Sure. ND vs USC is one. But the overwhelming majority of them are regional rivalries built from years of playing each other while being schools that are similar in some way.

So a private school in fricken Boston is about an unappealing of an annual game as you can get for a Florida school in college football.

Of course if they get good the games are better, but there will never be a rivalry.

Everyone understands. You are just repeating your mantra and defeating your own arguments. FSU fans think contrary to your position. BC is your 3rd or even 2nd highest attended game. That means FSU fans want to see BC more than the games FSU schedules and most of FSU's ACC opponents. Fans show up for the team that is farthest from the school

We all generally agree with you that regional rivalries are important. However, the conference is no longer in a small, tight region and must integrate all the teams.

If/when the ACC goes to 16, a N/S split will probably occur, especially if PSU and/or ND are involved. However, the AD's and Presidents/Chancellors have determined that for now, the current divisions are appropriate.

Your argument boils down to calling other posters ignorant, degrading other universities and effectively claiming that the university heads and ACC staff are morons because you want to play GATech and don't want to play BC or Syracuse. If the ACC changes the divisions, well and good, if not, so be it.

(06-07-2013 05:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Why don't you list all of the national rivalries vs the regional rivalries. See which wins.

Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they aren't in a conference and play a national schedule. That said, their only huge rivalry across the country is with USC.

The fact that you think BC/FSU has as much potential as GT/FSU shows how unknowledgeable you truly are.

They got a pretty good rivalry going with Stanford now too.

I never said BC/FSU has the same potential as GT/FSU. I'm showing you that FSU fans still show up for BC, and in alot of cases they are better attended than schools that are much closer to FSU's campus.

(06-07-2013 06:02 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:30 PM)Ragu Wrote:  That is what some of you don't understand. College football is about regional rivalries. Are there are few historic national rivalries? Sure. ND vs USC is one. But the overwhelming majority of them are regional rivalries built from years of playing each other while being schools that are similar in some way.

So a private school in fricken Boston is about an unappealing of an annual game as you can get for a Florida school in college football.

Of course if they get good the games are better, but there will never be a rivalry.

Everyone understands. You are just repeating your mantra and defeating your own arguments. FSU fans think contrary to your position. BC is your 3rd or even 2nd highest attended game. That means FSU fans want to see BC more than the games FSU schedules and most of FSU's ACC opponents. Fans show up for the team that is farthest from the school

We all generally agree with you that regional rivalries are important. However, the conference is no longer in a small, tight region and must integrate all the teams.

If/when the ACC goes to 16, a N/S split will probably occur, especially if PSU and/or ND are involved. However, the AD's and Presidents/Chancellors have determined that for now, the current divisions are appropriate.

Your argument boils down to calling other posters ignorant, degrading other universities and effectively claiming that the university heads and ACC staff are morons because you want to play GATech and don't want to play BC or Syracuse. If the ACC changes the divisions, well and good, if not, so be it.

More like the power brokers such as UVA/UNC dont' want changes so they wont happen. FSU has publicly said they want divisional changes. People that don't know that need to do some research.

Fans show up at FSU for a lot of conference games. Go to any FSU board and ask them if they like the BC game. I have posted on Warchant for years and the overwhelming majority wants N/S divisions and hates the BC game.

There a lot of factors on why fans go to games. They damn sure aren't going to see BC. BC was awful last year and the attendance was about the same as when they were highly ranked. That proves you guys wrong right there.

(06-07-2013 05:48 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Here is the link to an article on Warchant from summer of 2012. It may not work though because it may be insider. But I can copy the first paragraph because they do that on previews anyways...

http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1373740

"

Get your 7-day free trial to Warchant.com!

SARASOTA - Florida State President Eric Barron suggested that playing higher profile out of conference football games, winning more in the Atlantic Coast Conference, realigning the ACC divisions and keeping a close eye on the pending BCS playoff format are "keys to success" for FSU in the future during a conference realignment presentation to the FSU Board of Trustees on Thursday. "

Thanks for the link. I'm not a subscriber to that site or any other sites on that board and I can open the article no problem.

ACC Regional alignment: Barron suggested that realigned divisions in the ACC could help FSU's travel times/costs and could better incorporate the school's alumni base. One popular line of thought is to move Georgia Tech to the Atlantic Division to join Clemson and Florida State - possibly switching with Maryland or Boston College - to give the league a more regional footprint. After Clemson, the closest team in FSU's division is Wake Forest, which is about 540 miles from Tallahassee. The Atlantic Division just added Syracuse for the 2013 season.


Seems to me though that the main thrust was getting GT into the Atlantic for either Maryland or BC which both repliers to you in this thread have conceded.

You have yet to concede that this want by FSU is selfish in light of the fact that they don't have any problem with making Miami travel farther as a result, right?

C'mon man. Give us something.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 06:01 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:55 PM)Ragu Wrote:  So you are going to completely ignore the article that says the President wanted divisional changes? This is why I wanted you to do the research. Because you are the one that needs to gain knowledge on college football.

I guess you can't read because I commented on this a few threads up. I saw where Barron floated the idea of GT to cut down on travel. This was pre-Louisville. I don't hear him saying that now.

More than just GT. They talked about wanting geographical divisions. And they talked about UVA shooting it down. Plenty know about this. When you actually learn about college football maybe you can actually contribute intelligently.

The GOR is signed now. Any talks about this kind of stuff are going to be done behind closed doors. But if you think FSU thinks Louisville is equal to GT as an opponent you are very stupid.

I guess I'm stupid because when was the last time GT won a BCS bowl? Ville has won 2 in the last few years.

Like I said before, these comments about GT were pre-Louisville. Show me some data that is post Louisville about FSU's divisional alignment concerns. If it's that big of a deal for FSU then they should be screaming about it. They're not.

(06-07-2013 05:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Why don't you list all of the national rivalries vs the regional rivalries. See which wins.

Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they aren't in a conference and play a national schedule. That said, their only huge rivalry across the country is with USC.

The fact that you think BC/FSU has as much potential as GT/FSU shows how unknowledgeable you truly are.

Most people consider the Stanford and Navy rivalries important, too, neither of which is close by. Army was an important rivalry for decades.

I'm not claiming BC will be a heated rivalry, or even as nig as GATech COULD be, just pointing out that there are other rivalries with distance between them.

By your definition, the Miami/FSU rivalry is a long distance rivalry.

Texas/OU (which was NOT a conference game until the mid 90s) has some distance between them.

Most of the PAC games fit your description, too. And let's not forget that Montana and Boise were once in a conference with several PAC teams.

There are many more, especially in lesser conferences.

(06-07-2013 06:17 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Why don't you list all of the national rivalries vs the regional rivalries. See which wins.

Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they aren't in a conference and play a national schedule. That said, their only huge rivalry across the country is with USC.

The fact that you think BC/FSU has as much potential as GT/FSU shows how unknowledgeable you truly are.

Most people consider the Stanford and Navy rivalries important, too, neither of which is close by. Army was an important rivalry for decades.

I'm not claiming BC will be a heated rivalry, or even as nig as GATech COULD be, just pointing out that there are other rivalries with distance between them.

By your definition, the Miami/FSU rivalry is a long distance rivalry.

Texas/OU (which was NOT a conference game until the mid 90s) has some distance between them.

Most of the PAC games fit your description, too. And let's not forget that Montana and Boise were once in a conference with several PAC teams.

There are many more, especially in lesser conferences.

Yeah Miami/FSU is very comparable to FSU/BC. And 2 states that border each other in Texas/Oklahoma is the same as Mass to FLA. Please.

(06-07-2013 06:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 06:01 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:55 PM)Ragu Wrote:  So you are going to completely ignore the article that says the President wanted divisional changes? This is why I wanted you to do the research. Because you are the one that needs to gain knowledge on college football.

I guess you can't read because I commented on this a few threads up. I saw where Barron floated the idea of GT to cut down on travel. This was pre-Louisville. I don't hear him saying that now.

More than just GT. They talked about wanting geographical divisions. And they talked about UVA shooting it down. Plenty know about this. When you actually learn about college football maybe you can actually contribute intelligently.

The GOR is signed now. Any talks about this kind of stuff are going to be done behind closed doors. But if you think FSU thinks Louisville is equal to GT as an opponent you are very stupid.

I guess I'm stupid because when was the last time GT won a BCS bowl? Ville has won 2 in the last few years.

Like I said before, these comments about GT were pre-Louisville. Show me some data that is post Louisville about FSU's divisional alignment concerns. If it's that big of a deal for FSU then they should be screaming about it. They're not.

Again the GOR is signed. They aren't going to publicly bash the ACC about things that can be handled behind closed doors.

But if you think Louisville and GT are equal to FSU, you again don't know what you are talking about.

Louisville has 2 top 10 finishes in the history of the school. You aren't fooling anyone in thinking they are a huge upgrade to GT.

(06-07-2013 06:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 05:48 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Here is the link to an article on Warchant from summer of 2012. It may not work though because it may be insider. But I can copy the first paragraph because they do that on previews anyways...

http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1373740

"

Get your 7-day free trial to Warchant.com!

SARASOTA - Florida State President Eric Barron suggested that playing higher profile out of conference football games, winning more in the Atlantic Coast Conference, realigning the ACC divisions and keeping a close eye on the pending BCS playoff format are "keys to success" for FSU in the future during a conference realignment presentation to the FSU Board of Trustees on Thursday. "

Thanks for the link. I'm not a subscriber to that site or any other sites on that board and I can open the article no problem.

ACC Regional alignment: Barron suggested that realigned divisions in the ACC could help FSU's travel times/costs and could better incorporate the school's alumni base. One popular line of thought is to move Georgia Tech to the Atlantic Division to join Clemson and Florida State - possibly switching with Maryland or Boston College - to give the league a more regional footprint. After Clemson, the closest team in FSU's division is Wake Forest, which is about 540 miles from Tallahassee. The Atlantic Division just added Syracuse for the 2013 season.


Seems to me though that the main thrust was getting GT into the Atlantic for either Maryland or BC which both repliers to you in this thread have conceded.

You have yet to concede that this want by FSU is selfish in light of the fact that they don't have any problem with making Miami travel farther as a result, right?

C'mon man. Give us something.

Cheers,
Neil

It wouldn't say "geographic divisions" if it were just Georgia Tech.. That is the popular line of thinking because it is the settlement. But FSU definitely wants geographic divisions. And they were shot down by UVA multiple times .

(06-07-2013 06:06 PM)Ragu Wrote:  There a lot of factors on why fans go to games. They damn sure aren't going to see BC. BC was awful last year and the attendance was about the same as when they were highly ranked. That proves you guys wrong right there.

Actually, it shows that fans show up for their team, not because of the opponent. I was merely using your argument against you. You lost your point so you changed the parameters. You do this often and it is circular.

You have repeatedly made your points that you want GATech and don't want BC or Syracuse. There is no need to go further. We all understand your points, arguments and some agree, some agree in principal, some disagree. What you miss is that the decision makers have made their decision, for good or ill. It will be that way for a while and it will change if it is appropriate to do so.

Info from that Warchant article:

The addition of Louisville was applauded by FSU Board of Trustees Chairman Allan Bense.

"I think Louisville is a good addition to the ACC, I think they have clearly proven that they're a good football team, a good university, they've been around for a long time," Bense told Warchant.com. "I think they will be a nice addition to the ACC and I clearly support them being a part of the ACC. I'm thrilled."

Bense said that a potential addition to the league had been a topic of conversation between himself and FSU president Eric Barron within the past week. According to Bense, among the top priorities in the school's input with the ACC was to consider a strong football program. He thought that other schools in consideration could be to "one dimensional" for the conference.

"Not just FSU's perspective but the ACC's perspective, I think it was prudent to add someone with football prowess because as we've seen with the things going on with the Big 10 and others, they're looking for football markets and what not and football does tend to drive a lot of these conferences," Bense said. "I think Louisville is a good link-up with the ACC and Florida State."

The two previous additions to the ACC, Pitt and Syracuse, were criticized as a decision to bolster basketball with no attention paid to the quality of football in the conference. Pitt and Syracuse begin play in the ACC next season.

But with the football ramping up, Bense believes that's a good sign for FSU and the rest of the league.

"I think Louisville is a good football school, I think they're a good university, I look forward to beating them," Bense joked.


There's a lot of love for Louisville in that article.

(06-07-2013 06:25 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 06:06 PM)Ragu Wrote:  There a lot of factors on why fans go to games. They damn sure aren't going to see BC. BC was awful last year and the attendance was about the same as when they were highly ranked. That proves you guys wrong right there.

Actually, it shows that fans show up for their team, not because of the opponent. I was merely using your argument against you. You lost your point so you changed the parameters. You do this often and it is circular.

You have repeatedly made your points that you want GATech and don't want BC or Syracuse. There is no need to go further. We all understand your points, arguments and some agree, some agree in principal, some disagree. What you miss is that the decision makers have made their decision, for good or ill. It will be that way for a while and it will change if it is appropriate to do so.

I already said that multiple times! I said the fans show up for games regardless of the opponent. And I said it wasn't because of BC. That was my point in showing how the attendance was similar with a horrible BC team vs a good BC team.

FYI I looked back on attendance last year. The numbers are similar. BC beat Duke/Wake/Savannah State/Murray St. They were less than Clemson and Miami. So how does any of that show that they are a team the fans like ?

Just because they come to the game doesn't mean they like the opponent. And most FSU fans do not like the BC game.

You keep saying decision makers as if all agree too. We all know that isn't the case and that the power brokers like VA/UNC win out as usual.

Everyone has said that they wanted Louisville in the conference. FSU/Clemson were the main two that wanted them.

That doesn't mean that FSU would rather play Louisville than GT though. That means FSU would rather play Louisville than UConn.

If FSU could switch anybody besides Clemson with GT in their division, they would do it in a second.