Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

(08-25-2012 10:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws in football.

Okay, so it makes sense for them to be in opposite divisions and have a possible ACC title match-up.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws for who exactly in football? That's certainly not true for us. VT, UNC and NC State draw bigger crowds than Clemson for us and there are a host that produce a bigger crowd than FSU.

(08-26-2012 12:02 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws for who exactly in football? That's certainly not true for us. VT, UNC and NC State draw bigger crowds than Clemson for us and there are a host that produce a bigger crowd than FSU.

Like you pointed out, it depends. That's why having a good mix of schools is the way to go.

(08-26-2012 06:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  Okay, so it makes sense for them to be in opposite divisions and have a possible ACC title match-up.

No it makes sense to have them playing every year. Splitting them up would just make it worse. But GT also belongs in the same division with those 2 schools.

No they really don't need to play every year any more than any other schools do. There is no historic hatred, or rivalry trophy. Because they are the two strongest programs right now? Okay, then I argue let them meet in Charlotte. If you zipper south to north like I did you'll see that it preserves the most rivalries and balances the division quite well. FSU-VT will be missed, but you get FSU-GT and VT-U. Clemson has U, NCSU, Wake, GT, VT, and BC every year. They lose out on FSU, but why kill yourself with that when you want to play SC and/or UGA every year too?

(08-26-2012 02:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  No they really don't need to play every year any more than any other schools do. There is no historic hatred, or rivalry trophy.

I'll agree to drop FSU every year the minute that UNC and Duke agree that they don't need to play each other home and home in hoops every year.

Quote: Clemson has U, NCSU, Wake, GT, VT, and BC every year. They lose out on FSU, but why kill yourself with that when you want to play SC and/or UGA every year too?

None of the schools mentioned matter to us as much as FSU, and we aren't playing South Carolina and Georgia every year......after the UGA series ends in 2014 we will likely never play them in a regular season game again because you effin' hoops schools now have us playing 9 conference games.

And "Why kill yourself" you ask? Because we want to nationally matter in football and you can't do that playing a weak ACC slate.

Well what would be so bad about scheduling SC or UGA in place of FSU and still having GT, NCSU, U, and VT on the schedule? Humph. If that is a word I'm pretty sure it describes your initial reaction.

(08-26-2012 06:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  Well what would be so bad about scheduling SC or UGA in place of FSU and still having GT, NCSU, U, and VT on the schedule?

South Carolina is already on the schedule every year, and because of the asinine 9th ACC game after 2014 we will never play UGA in the regular season again. Instead we get a weak ACC school in it's place.

We will fight tooth and nail to keep FSU on our schedule, and I feel sure FSU would do the same with us. Want to push both schools out of the conference? Go with your dumb*** idea.

The strength of schedule component of the four team playoffs is already going to be an uphill battle for ACC schools because of the fact that half of our schools pay lip service at best attention to football since it is a diversion until hoops starts for them. The last thing we need is to have a 9 game conference slate and then dumb it down that much more.

And if Miami was competing for national titles like circa 2003 what would you say? All I'm proposing is that simple trade to make FSU happy; they can play GT yearly, they've won national titles. Is that so much to ask?

(08-26-2012 06:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  And if Miami was competing for national titles like circa 2003 what would you say?

Wouldn't matter. We have to have as much revenue as possible to make up for the pathetic TV contract your puppet negotiated for us. Since we are crippled by the 9 game conference slate from bringing in big name opponents the only way we can increase revenue is ticket sales. FSU is a proven attendance draw at Clemson, as they are always either our most highly attended game or the second highest. When the vast majority of the fans in this conference could carpool to an away game we need as many high draws as we can get. We will fight tooth and nail and would seriously consider leaving if you take away one of the best proven draws we have each year.

Quote:All I'm proposing is that simple trade to make FSU happy; they can play GT yearly, they've won national titles. Is that so much to ask?

FSU wouldn't be happy with swapping us for GT. They want both, primarily for the same reasons I posted above.

(08-26-2012 07:01 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 06:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  And if Miami was competing for national titles like circa 2003 what would you say?

Wouldn't matter. We have to have as much revenue as possible to make up for the pathetic TV contract your puppet negotiated for us. Since we are crippled by the 9 game conference slate from bringing in big name opponents the only way we can increase revenue is ticket sales. FSU is a proven attendance draw at Clemson, as they are always either our most highly attended game or the second highest. When the vast majority of the fans in this conference could carpool to an away game we need as many high draws as we can get. We will fight tooth and nail and would seriously consider leaving if you take away one of the best proven draws we have each year.

Quote:All I'm proposing is that simple trade to make FSU happy; they can play GT yearly, they've won national titles. Is that so much to ask?

FSU wouldn't be happy with swapping us for GT. They want both, primarily for the same reasons I posted above.

Well at least one thing is for sure. No one will split the UM-FSU yearly series. If they do, that's just asking for ACC civil war.

(08-26-2012 07:32 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 07:01 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 06:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  And if Miami was competing for national titles like circa 2003 what would you say?

Wouldn't matter. We have to have as much revenue as possible to make up for the pathetic TV contract your puppet negotiated for us. Since we are crippled by the 9 game conference slate from bringing in big name opponents the only way we can increase revenue is ticket sales. FSU is a proven attendance draw at Clemson, as they are always either our most highly attended game or the second highest. When the vast majority of the fans in this conference could carpool to an away game we need as many high draws as we can get. We will fight tooth and nail and would seriously consider leaving if you take away one of the best proven draws we have each year.

Quote:All I'm proposing is that simple trade to make FSU happy; they can play GT yearly, they've won national titles. Is that so much to ask?

FSU wouldn't be happy with swapping us for GT. They want both, primarily for the same reasons I posted above.

Well at least one thing is for sure. No one will split the UM-FSU yearly series. If they do, that's just asking for ACC civil war.

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of Tabaky Rd. They've become quite adept at screwing up football since 1953.

I did read your entire post for the record.

I guess I'm somewhat in awe of the idea that Clemson is a powerhouse, actually even a perennial top 25 team, which of course, any sane football fan knows not true. Most average fans don't even know where Clemson is. I do like Clemson, their camp feel, orange get-ups with purple trim. Every time they enter the Dean Dome they think "this may be our first win." I don't mind Clemson. Sure, they lost their basketball coach to DePaul. Sure, they....is there much else? I don't know, maybe it's just me being a blue basketball fan. Haven't seen much of Clemson the last 30 years that's impressed me. I think I'll forward this to Swoff and we'll have a laugh. 8D

C'Mon MAN!

What I propose would require an 8 game conference slate, I understand that. Can we agree on that?

(08-25-2012 11:21 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 10:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws in football.

FSU, yes...Clemson, no.
Right now the two biggest draws in the ACC for television would be FSU and Virginia Tech.

(08-26-2012 08:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 11:21 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 10:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws in football.

FSU, yes...Clemson, no.
Right now the two biggest draws in the ACC for television would be FSU and Virginia Tech.

I would imagine that Miami has to be up there as well, as a tv draw, even though they have been down.

(08-26-2012 08:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  I did read your entire post for the record.

I guess I'm somewhat in awe of the idea that Clemson is a powerhouse, actually even a perennial top 25 team, which of course, any sane football fan knows not true. Most average fans don't even know where Clemson is. I do like Clemson, their camp feel, orange get-ups with purple trim. Every time they enter the Dean Dome they think "this may be our first win." I don't mind Clemson. Sure, they lost their basketball coach to DePaul. Sure, they....is there much else? I don't know, maybe it's just me being a blue basketball fan. Haven't seen much of Clemson the last 30 years that's impressed me. I think I'll forward this to Swoff and we'll have a laugh. 8D

C'Mon MAN!

What I propose would require an 8 game conference slate, I understand that. Can we agree on that?

Yet again a goat can't help but bring basketball into a football discussion.


***NEWS FLASH***
As the abortion of a TV contract proves, basketball is insignificant when compared to football. The problems that this conference have are primarily caused by the fact that the vast majority of this conference's school still think it's the 1980's when hoops ruled the roost, thus decisions are made with primarily basketball in mind, including expanding with two hoops schools, going to a 9 game football schedule so that the NC schools would play more often, and going into TV contract negotiations with one hand tied behind our back by insisting that basketball partner Raycom was part of the contract.

Removing FSU from Clemson's schedule every year would be devastating for the football product. Not to have the two schools who possess almost half (26 out of 59) of the ACC's football championships not play yearly is asinine at best. Not having the only two schools in this conference capable of putting 80k butts in the seats is criminal.

(08-26-2012 08:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 11:21 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 10:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws in football.

FSU, yes...Clemson, no.
Right now the two biggest draws in the ACC for television would be FSU and Virginia Tech.

Butts in the seats.

Put Clemson and VT on equal footing and ask our bowl partners who they want. $2 bills with Tiger Paws on them make an impression on the local business leaders.
NY Times

(08-26-2012 08:46 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 08:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 11:21 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-25-2012 10:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Of your five listed schools I put Clemson in with Miami and VaTech. Plus you would get GT as a crossover.

FSU and Clemson are the biggest draws in football.

FSU, yes...Clemson, no.
Right now the two biggest draws in the ACC for television would be FSU and Virginia Tech.

Butts in the seats.

Put Clemson and VT on equal footing and ask our bowl partners who they want. $2 bills with Tiger Paws on them make an impression on the local business leaders.
NY Times

VT has had no trouble filling 80,000 at FedEx, Atlanta or Charlotte. We're quite capable of putting butts in the seats.