(10-05-2013 08:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 08:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 10:54 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

Yes, but the rules don't affect all the teams the same way. For starters, 3 9/14ths OOC games as opposed to 2 9/14ths OOC games is a MUCH bigger benefit to FSU than it is to Wake. Read Kaplony's post above if you don't think that extra OOC games aren't a big deal to big programs, and FSU is the biggest program in the conference.

Anyway, there are also other factors, but I really don't want to get into this with you beyond that.

There really aren't other factors. In fact a school like Syracuse has an easier time scheduling up because the marque teams don't really fear them. FSU has been trying in recent years to get another SEC team scheduled for a 2nd marque game, but these teams are avoiding them like the plague. Georgia is the latest that wouldn't even give FSU a 1 year neutral site game in fricken Atlanta.....

The bottom line is the 9th game shouldn't happen unless FSU/Clemson get something in return. They already got stuck in a terrible division in this conference so taking away an extra home game or marque game to schedule OOC is a non starter.

This is why I don't argue with kids.

(10-05-2013 10:00 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 08:48 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 08:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 10:54 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

Yes, but the rules don't affect all the teams the same way. For starters, 3 9/14ths OOC games as opposed to 2 9/14ths OOC games is a MUCH bigger benefit to FSU than it is to Wake. Read Kaplony's post above if you don't think that extra OOC games aren't a big deal to big programs, and FSU is the biggest program in the conference.

Anyway, there are also other factors, but I really don't want to get into this with you beyond that.

There really aren't other factors. In fact a school like Syracuse has an easier time scheduling up because the marque teams don't really fear them. FSU has been trying in recent years to get another SEC team scheduled for a 2nd marque game, but these teams are avoiding them like the plague. Georgia is the latest that wouldn't even give FSU a 1 year neutral site game in fricken Atlanta.....

The bottom line is the 9th game shouldn't happen unless FSU/Clemson get something in return. They already got stuck in a terrible division in this conference so taking away an extra home game or marque game to schedule OOC is a non starter.

This is why I don't argue with kids.

If 30 is a kid then thanks. But that is an easy sentence to type. I very much doubt that you have more knowledge of the overall landscape than I do. Not my fault that you can't use common sense. Everything I said above has happened and is valid.

Yeah a fan of a team brand new to the ACC knows so much more than people who have seen it for years. Right...

No to a ninth conference game, these should be our yearly 9th games:

Miami------(rotate USF/UCF?)
FSU--------Florida
GT---------Georgia
Clemson---USC
NCSU------ECU
WF---------Vandy
Duke-------Navy (or Tulane if Navy can't)
UNC--------Tennessee
UVA---------UMD
VT-----------WVU
Louisville----UK
Pitt----------Penn St.
Syracuse----Rutgers
BC----------UConn (or UMass)

Feel free to fine tune it.

(10-05-2013 12:06 PM)esayem Wrote:  No to a ninth conference game, these should be our yearly 9th games:

Miami------(rotate USF/UCF?)
FSU--------Florida
GT---------Georgia
Clemson---USC
NCSU------ECU
WF---------Vandy
Duke-------Navy (or Tulane if Navy can't)
UNC--------Tennessee
UVA---------UMD
VT-----------WVU
Louisville----UK
Pitt----------Penn St.
Syracuse----Rutgers
BC----------UConn (or UMass)

Feel free to fine tune it.

I would rather take a bye than play Rutgers as the last game of the season or as a "rivalry game." RU isn't our rival and they never will be.

UCONN v. BC isn't going to happen either.

(10-05-2013 11:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  If 30 is a kid then thanks. But that is an easy sentence to type. I very much doubt that you have more knowledge of the overall landscape than I do. Not my fault that you can't use common sense. Everything I said above has happened and is valid.

Yeah a fan of a team brand new to the ACC knows so much more than people who have seen it for years. Right...

Good luck with exams this year. I remember sophomore year being a blast and I'm sure FAU is a fun time. I'm not going to argue with you. It just isn't productive. However, I will bury the hatchet so to speak.

(10-05-2013 12:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 11:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  If 30 is a kid then thanks. But that is an easy sentence to type. I very much doubt that you have more knowledge of the overall landscape than I do. Not my fault that you can't use common sense. Everything I said above has happened and is valid.

Yeah a fan of a team brand new to the ACC knows so much more than people who have seen it for years. Right...

Good luck with exams this year. I remember sophomore year being a blast and I'm sure FAU is a fun time. I'm not going to argue with you. It just isn't productive. However, I will bury the hatchet so to speak.

Good luck with the SAT's.. I am sure if you bear down you can manage to get an average score (see anyone can do that crap)....

Like I said, nothing I said is wrong. It's not my fault if you just don't have knowledge of how things work.

There are only two things I think that would lead to a nine game ACC schedule.

#1. TV demands a nine game schedule. If the conference does get a real TV network off the ground, then I could see the ACC's TV partners requesting a nine game schedule. Conference games generally make better TV than body-bag OOC games and adding a ninth game to the schedule would add more ACC vs ACC inventory for the network. If/when the league starts an ACC Network, it will be easier to get it picked up by cable providers if there are actually good games on it. I suspect that is partly why the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 12 have either moved or are considering moving to a 9 game conference schedule

#2. Pressure to conform. Let's say the ACC is the only major conference that does not require its members to play at least nine conference foes. While not playing nine conference games might be a good thing for some fans/administrators in the ACC, could it be seen as a negative in the eyes of the selection committee? If ACC teams are "penalized" in the perception sense for only playing eight conference foes, then it might push the conference towards adding another game to the schedule. One of the reasons why I think the Big 12 will ultimately expand is because the lack of a championship game is going to give the Big 12 a perception hit when it comes to making the playoffs (easier road with no championship game).

(10-05-2013 01:15 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are only two things I think that would lead to a nine game ACC schedule.

#1. TV demands a nine game schedule. If the conference does get a real TV network off the ground, then I could see the ACC's TV partners requesting a nine game schedule. Conference games generally make better TV than body-bag OOC games and adding a ninth game to the schedule would add more ACC vs ACC inventory for the network. If/when the league starts an ACC Network, it will be easier to get it picked up by cable providers if there are actually good games on it. I suspect that is partly why the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 12 have either moved or are considering moving to a 9 game conference schedule

#2. Pressure to conform. Let's say the ACC is the only major conference that does not require its members to play at least nine conference foes. While not playing nine conference games might be a good thing for some fans/administrators in the ACC, could it be seen as a negative in the eyes of the selection committee? If ACC teams are "penalized" in the perception sense for only playing eight conference foes, then it might push the conference towards adding another game to the schedule. One of the reasons why I think the Big 12 will ultimately expand is because the lack of a championship game is going to give the Big 12 a perception hit when it comes to making the playoffs (easier road with no championship game).

ACC is already doing something other conferences are not.....5 game deal with Notre Dame.

(10-05-2013 01:01 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Good luck with the SAT's.. I am sure if you bear down you can manage to get an average score (see anyone can do that crap)....

Like I said, nothing I said is wrong. It's not my fault if you just don't have knowledge of how things work.

You're absolutely right. The ACC is out to get FSU and it's all a Syracuse-driven conspiracy. We're upset with FSU after FSU took the ACC spot that we declined in '91, so we're doing everything in our power to destroy you. Off the top of my head, the current division setup is not designed to give FSU a regular season game against Miami every year with the possibility of a championship game against Miami, maximizing excitement for FSU. It's also not designed to create an exciting division race between the two teams with the best traveling fan bases in the conference. Anyway, even if it was, an exciting yearly division championship race with Clemson does not disproportionally benefit FSU. Furthermore, the 8 game schedule does not benefit FSU in any way. Teams like Syracuse obviously staunchly oppose 9 game schedules because SU absolutely detests the idea of playing schools like Miami, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech on a more regular basis. In fact, in your own words, teams like FSU have trouble getting top tier OOC teams to play them at their home, so the ACC's scheduling agreement with ND doesn't benefit FSU in any possible way. It was clearly a basketball move because schools like UNC, Duke, and Syracuse desperately need ND on their basketball schedule and teams like Pittsburgh desperately need to clear up space in their footballs schedule by turning the yearly ND game into a "once every 3 years" game.

You're also right that I have absolutely no idea how the ACC works. The interworkings of the ACC are a HUGE secret not freely shared with anyone outside a very select group of people. Ignoring the fact that I spent 20 years living down south and have a sister that lives in SC, I'm only a fan of a school that has consistently played some ACC teams for 30+-20+ years. I'm only a fan of a school that has flirted with the ACC for over 20 years before we joined. I'm only a fan of a school that got absolutely screwed over by the ACC 10 years ago. In short, I have no vested interest in following the conference and, given that conference news is very, very constricted to a very specific area of the country, there's no possibly way that I could follow the ACC, even if I wanted to.

Furthermore, your posts have consistently demonstrated a level of emotional maturity not characteristic of a 19/20 year old college sophomore T-shirt fan, which is exceedingly obvious to everyone who is 30+ years old. Your impeccable grammar also indicate that you are an intellectual giant, which is complimented by you consistent ability to succinctly state well-reasoned and compelling arguments. In fact, bringing up your high school GPA* and genealogy* as proof of being right in a sports argument is totally not evidence to the contrary.

Finally, your implication that I said something contrary to the fact that the ACC will not go to 9 games because teams like FSU and Clemson want to stay at 8 is also correct. Sure I said "[t]he ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games," but you were right to read between the lines and extrapolate something completely different.

I guess in summary, I give. You win. You were/are absolutely right about everything.

*Both of which have actually happened multiple times in the past.

(10-05-2013 01:15 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are only two things I think that would lead to a nine game ACC schedule.

#1. TV demands a nine game schedule. If the conference does get a real TV network off the ground, then I could see the ACC's TV partners requesting a nine game schedule. Conference games generally make better TV than body-bag OOC games and adding a ninth game to the schedule would add more ACC vs ACC inventory for the network. If/when the league starts an ACC Network, it will be easier to get it picked up by cable providers if there are actually good games on it. I suspect that is partly why the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 12 have either moved or are considering moving to a 9 game conference schedule

#2. Pressure to conform. Let's say the ACC is the only major conference that does not require its members to play at least nine conference foes. While not playing nine conference games might be a good thing for some fans/administrators in the ACC, could it be seen as a negative in the eyes of the selection committee? If ACC teams are "penalized" in the perception sense for only playing eight conference foes, then it might push the conference towards adding another game to the schedule. One of the reasons why I think the Big 12 will ultimately expand is because the lack of a championship game is going to give the Big 12 a perception hit when it comes to making the playoffs (easier road with no championship game).

RE 1: It depends which of the OOC games is dropped. In my eyes, dropping a game against a team like BYU in favor of a game against a team like UNC is a wash, dropping Alabama for pretty much anyone is a loss, and dropping a team like Troy for a Tech game would be a win and improve the contract. So, dropping BYU would have no effect, dropping 'Bama would be bad, and dropping Troy would be good. It all depends.

(09-30-2013 11:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  An alternative to the 9 game conference schedule would be developing some kind of a scheduling alliance. There was talk at one point of developing such an alliance with the SEC.

No there wasn't. Only people on this board were saying that.

(09-30-2013 09:37 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Yeah but does BYU really deserve the consideration that Notre Dame does? I don't think so.

We want ND to join some day. Not the case with BYU.

Huh? What he said wasn't the same consideration. At all. Didn't say anything about trying to lure them to the ACC. It was basically a more complex version of signing a deal with someone like Wisconsin for a home/away series.

(10-01-2013 05:39 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation?

This idea is stupid. I'm not singling you out. Others on here have said the same stupidness.

None of the schools want to drop ND.

(10-02-2013 01:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This was suggested by someone else, but the best alternative is to have four pods. have fours groups, 2 of 4 teams, 2 of three teams. The groups of 4 are always in opposite divisions, as are the groups of 3. The groups of 3 switch every year or other year so that the divisions aren't static. Every crossover game in a year is against the teams in the group you are never with for a division.

I'm in favor of any radical scheduling arrangements that allows a higher frequency of games against the other division while keeping it at 8 conference games. It goes without saying that all of these strategies must keep the annual FSU vs Clemson/Miami games. If you could get it to where you face every ACC school every other year than there's no complaint from me about hardly ever playing GT. Because once in like 19 years is a got damn travesty.

(10-03-2013 01:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  1) This assumes that the ACC schools will ALWAYS be weak schools. While some schools will most likely never rise past mediocrity, there are enough schools in the conference that CAN make the next step to respectability and strength.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE! WE'VE BEEN HEARING THIS FOR YEARS!

(10-03-2013 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The point of the extra conference game is more TV money. With the average TV value of each game at roughly $3.5-$4 million per (based on the number of games divided by the average contract value for football) the extra TV money should offset the lost 0.5 home game per season.

The ACC would be adding 7 conference games per season but would be losing 14 out of conference games per season. Don't think it's as easy as saying, "Each game brings the ACC $X. If we add an additional game we will now receive 7*$X."

(10-04-2013 08:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 10:54 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games. They both have very sweet deals (esp. FSU), which means they aren't going to be OK with change. Throw in the fact that the ACC needs them, and it's pretty clear why change won't happen.

Despite being a strong proponent for 9 conference games, and despite thinking that 9 games is what's best for the conference, I'm OK with the ACC catering to the teams up top. They're the ones that build the perceived strength of the conference, and that's important. I don't think that this is the best way to cater to them, but the spirit is there and it's reasonable, so I'll live with it.

What "sweet deal" does FSU get that the rest of the conference team's can't do? They are all scheduling by the same exact rules and many of them got their preferred divisions on top of that (which FSU certainly didn't get).

Yes, but the rules don't affect all the teams the same way. For starters, 3 9/14ths OOC games as opposed to 2 9/14ths OOC games is a MUCH bigger benefit to FSU than it is to Wake. Read Kaplony's post above if you don't think that extra OOC games aren't a big deal to big programs, and FSU is the biggest program in the conference.

Anyway, there are also other factors, but I really don't want to get into this with you beyond that.

Incredible. So your "sweet deal for FSU" is the conference voting together to remain at 8 games? You seem to be conveniently ignoring that having that scheduling flexibility is actually good for the conference. As we saw the last decade, if FSU isn't strong the ACC doesn't get nearly as much respect (and that most definitely affects revenue). So, yea, let's try to hamstring the conference's greatest football asset.

(10-05-2013 09:09 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Though historically this is true, the Atlantic is trending upwards. I believe the expansion and new coaches (other schools) will work out well for both FSU and Clem. Next year Louisville comes in and we know they are serious about football. I think BC, Syr, and NCSU will all be competitive. The cupcake in the division is going to be Wake. I have a feeling they are going to regress back to their old ways. Honestly, the Atlantic might be better than the Coastal very soon.

UL won't be the same next year without Bridgewater. And the Atlantic already is better than the Coastal. It's not even close.

--------------------

Also, where the F is this 13 game schedule talk coming from? Anywhere other than this board? I'm against extending the season even longer. Thirteen regular season games, a conference championship game and 1-2 postseason games? That's ridiculous. The national champ will play 16 games? And why would it be happening in 2016?

I don't like a 9-game ACC schedule. Schools aren't going to stop scheduling the automatic wins against scrubs. So what that means is instead of games against BYU, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Texas A&M and the like that FSU has routinely scheduled since joining the ACC in the 90's - and future games against Boise, OK State, etc., FSU will instead have to play Duke, UVA, Cuse, UNC and Pitt more frequently. Sounds like a big fat loss for FSU.

I also don't like the unbalanced home/away schedule it creates. If the sole purpose of 9 games is to play each other more frequently, CHANGE THE DIVISIONS and get rid of permanent crossovers! Rearranging the divisions, to me, is the less drastic option when comparing it to adding a 9th game and keeping the divisions the same. It will make scheduling a bigger hassle for all teams, not just the ones who have OOC rivals.

(10-05-2013 04:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 01:01 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Good luck with the SAT's.. I am sure if you bear down you can manage to get an average score (see anyone can do that crap)....

Like I said, nothing I said is wrong. It's not my fault if you just don't have knowledge of how things work.

Furthermore, your posts have consistently demonstrated a level of emotional maturity not characteristic of a 19/20 year old college sophomore T-shirt fan, which is exceedingly obvious to everyone who is 30+ years old. Your impeccable grammar also indicate that you are an intellectual giant, which is complimented by you consistent ability to succinctly state well-reasoned and compelling arguments. In fact, bringing up your high school GPA* and genealogy* as proof of being right in a sports argument is totally not evidence to the contrary.

Finally, your implication that I said something contrary to the fact that the ACC will not go to 9 games because teams like FSU and Clemson want to stay at 8 is also correct. Sure I said "[t]he ACC won't go to 9 because FSU and Clemson don't want 9 conference games," but you were right to read between the lines and extrapolate something completely different.

I guess in summary, I give. You win. You were/are absolutely right about everything.

*Both of which have actually happened multiple times in the past.

It's funny that you call me out for grammar, typos etc.... You made an easy typo/mistake as well. Hilarious when you call someone else out for not making sense on a fricken message board.

Let's correct it since you are such a giant and clearly proofread all of your posts. Everyone makes little mistakes that can be pointed out.

1. Which is complimented by YOUR (not you) consistent ability...

Even you can make little mistakes when you are talking about someone else....

Sorry I don't go over my posts looking for every little error possible Mr English teacher...... It's a message board. Clearly you are perfect in that area....

Judging intelligence by how you post on a message board grammar wise... Absolutely hilarious. Thought I have seen it all. I post quickly and as if I am at a tailgate. I don't proofread my posts. I start sentences with "As" or "But" which I would never do in a research paper. I just post my thoughts quickly without using words that some would need a dictionary to figure out. A sports message board isn't the place to go for high level intellectual talk....

As for the T-shirt fan stuff, well it is garbage. Plenty of your fellow Syracuse fans on here didn't even go there as well. If you say this garbage then no fan who is under 18 can cheer in college sports. Oh and I guess my friends who went to D3 Case Western can't cheer for Ohio State since they chose a way better school to go to for academics. Damn them for that!.....

When I went to FAU, they were still FCS. I graduated before they were full time in the 2006 football season. Yes I cheer for FAU still, but I am not going to drop the team of my youth where most of my family went just because I spent 2 years at FAU (largely to help my family out, but you don't need to know details of that...).

Not to mention the irony that you cheer for like a dozen teams and you are calling me out for cheering for ONE that I grew up rooting for and had a ton of family connections to before going to college

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=635911&page=4


As for the GPA stuff, that was only brought up when people were acting like I couldn't get into a school on here when they were bashing FAU. My cousin went to Syracuse after going to the same HS as me. I outscored her in everything with better classes. Syracuse isn't some hard school that I could not get into (to say the least)....

PS: Miami/FSU were separated for other school's recruiting purposes. That was done to help them. It wasn't a carrot in FSU's cap to get into a separate division from Miami. In fact a lot of fans from both schools wanted to be in the same division to make the rivalry game more special (see Michigan/OSU not wanting to repeat). But since you are so knowledgeable on the ACC, you probably knew that and just misspoke...

FSU/Clemson has turned into a great rivalry recently. I still don't think it was near that great when the divisions were drafted. People citing this one matchup as proof that the ACC helped FSU are weak as well. The Coastal teams got their top 3 desired games in many cases. FSU did not.

Anyone can bash someone as you have to me in this thread. They usually say the basher is the one reaching because he doesn't know the material or lost the argument though. It is one thing for me to say you don't know what you are talking about (which I still believe). But you trying to get personal with intelligence, fandom etc is weak.

Not that I give a damn what you think of me (because you are just a dumb random message board fan), but the intelligence stuff is WAY off (to say the least)....

I for one, would like to see a 10 game conference schedule.
Ten games still leaves 1 game for that "special" ooc rivalry and 1 for the Labor Day tune up.

if they went to 13 game regular season id think they would start the season a week sooner

I don't see the big deal about "T-Shirt fans", so to speak. I've never attended Pitt, I hope to; however, I support the school by buying season tickets, been to two bowl games, and buy tons of shirts, and hats. Do alumni hate us that much? And in Pitt's case, I support the program more than the average grad does. If the average grad gave a sh*t, Heinz Field would be packed every Saturday. So what if Ragu is a "T-Shirt fan". At least he's supporting the school he grew up watching.

(10-06-2013 11:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I don't see the big deal about "T-Shirt fans", so to speak. I've never attended Pitt, I hope to; however, I support the school by buying season tickets, been to two bowl games, and buy tons of shirts, and hats. Do alumni hate us that much? And in Pitt's case, I support the program more than the average grad does. If the average grad gave a sh*t, Heinz Field would be packed every Saturday. So what if Ragu is a "T-Shirt fan". At least he's supporting the school he grew up watching.

Great post. Some of the biggest SU fans that I know never attended SU. You would never know it by regularly seeing them at the Carrier Dome even though they live thousands of miles away and seeing them at away games for both bb and fb. Seeing all of the support that SU has in Upstate, NY, its impossible that all of these folks attended SU. but they spend a lot of money on SU, one way or another.

(10-03-2013 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The point of the extra conference game is more TV money. With the average TV value of each game at roughly $3.5-$4 million per (based on the number of games divided by the average contract value for football) the extra TV money should offset the lost 0.5 home game per season.

The ACC would be adding 7 conference games per season but would be losing 14 out of conference games per season. Don't think it's as easy as saying, "Each game brings the ACC $X. If we add an additional game we will now receive 7*$X."
[/quote]

This is true, but from a TV perspective, OOC games for the most part count very little to TV value because they are unpredictable. Long term games (UF/FSU, USC/Clem, GT, UGA) are considered and contracted games (ND/ACC) are, but most others change so much, and change in terms of value, the TV value for conferences are almost purely based off conference games and known OOC that tend to never go away. IF you are accepting losing 0.5 home games per year, then the extra conference game is replacing a sunbelt or MAC team. That is a plus. If you are not (meaning you plan to replace a second BCS team), that generally is a break even SOS wise, then you are not losing a game at all, which means you still come out ahead monetarily.

(10-06-2013 01:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This was suggested by someone else, but the best alternative is to have four pods. have fours groups, 2 of 4 teams, 2 of three teams. The groups of 4 are always in opposite divisions, as are the groups of 3. The groups of 3 switch every year or other year so that the divisions aren't static. Every crossover game in a year is against the teams in the group you are never with for a division.

I'm in favor of any radical scheduling arrangements that allows a higher frequency of games against the other division while keeping it at 8 conference games. It goes without saying that all of these strategies must keep the annual FSU vs Clemson/Miami games. If you could get it to where you face every ACC school every other year than there's no complaint from me about hardly ever playing GT. Because once in like 19 years is a got damn travesty.

With 8 games, under my suggestion, the best scenario has you playing one (Clemson or Miami) every year, and the other (plus Georgia Tech) two out of every three. Or you can play both every year, and GT every other year. Doesn't really matter, as that would be something settled by only six teams within the conference that rotate (FSU. Miami, Clemson, GT, Louisville, and BC), and would not affect the other 8 teams, much like the other eight teams could decide which method works best for them. The main point is you play everyone else once every two years, and arrange the other six in the manner that best suits (I think the same six would remain in the rotating divisions, however they may alternate the set up if we went from 9 games to 8).

But one thing to consider though, from an FSU perspective, is a nine game schedule has you playing Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Boston College, Virginia tech/North Carolina, and Pitt/NC State EVERY year. If you are Clemson, the same thing only switching yourself out for FSU. And if you are North Carolina you can play NC State, Duke, Wake, Virginia, Virginia Tech, FSU/Miami, Clemson/GA Tech, and Bo College/Louisville every year.

To me that is a solid improvement in the conference schedule for everyone who has concerns with SOS, for everyone who has concerns with maintaining rivalries, and for everyone who wants more home games with cross division teams. You play everyone every other year at worse, and the only long term rivalries I can see that do not get played every year are Virginia/NC State, Virginia/Wake, and Bo College/Syracuse, which has only been played once since they left the BE. It can still work with 8 teams, but I can't see why anyone would not like this option at 9 when it comes to being good for the conference, and at worst "not bad" for them, if not outright good.

(10-07-2013 08:29 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-06-2013 11:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I don't see the big deal about "T-Shirt fans", so to speak. I've never attended Pitt, I hope to; however, I support the school by buying season tickets, been to two bowl games, and buy tons of shirts, and hats.

Great post. Some of the biggest SU fans that I know never attended SU. .

Ageed. Hell I am a "T-Shirt" fan for UofL, since I went to college elsewhere, at another ACC school even.

(10-07-2013 10:56 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:29 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-06-2013 11:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I don't see the big deal about "T-Shirt fans", so to speak. I've never attended Pitt, I hope to; however, I support the school by buying season tickets, been to two bowl games, and buy tons of shirts, and hats.

Great post. Some of the biggest SU fans that I know never attended SU. .

Ageed. Hell I am a "T-Shirt" fan for UofL, since I went to college elsewhere, at another ACC school even.

Where'd you go to school?

T-Shirt fans are often very important for a school as they help generate revenue. They might not be as important as LOCAL alumni, but they're very much a part of the athletic branch of the university.

It is important to know that D1 private schools such as Rice, Northwestern, Stanford, Tulane, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, etc. often find that a lot of their alumni move away from the school or go to grad school elsewhere. While they might deeply care about the university, they are physically disconnected from the campus itself.

1997 - 1998 Western Kentucky University
1998 - 2004 Towson University (Towson, MD) and the University of Maryland (College Park). Attended both simultaneously as a part time student
2004 - BS University of Maryland - Mass Media and Political Science


Essentially I spent a lot of time at a lot of schools. that said I was actually at MD when they had the height of their football and basketball success, and I found my self utterly disgusted with their fans, and ACC fans in general (fans of other ACC schools in MD are unbearable). They were like an educated version of West Virginia fans, if that makes any sense. Lots of trashcan burning.