(06-07-2013 09:00 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 10:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 10:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  For the love of god. You said in the next few years. If the ACC is currently averaging the reported/rumored $17-20M per team, then why is it unreasonable to expect both the Big Ten and SEC to be doing the same in the next couple years (since the Big Ten won't go on the market for another 2 years or so...which I guess you failed to acknowledge again)?

So if they're making more there, and then making more on a network, they have distanced themselves from the ACC. So whether "everyone's making more than $30M" is true or not doesn't really matter if 2 others are making close to/more than $40M.

The ACC doesn't really compete with the Big 12 or Pac 12 so who cares?

ACC does compete with those two and that's their target. They're not trying to catch the SEC or Big 10. ACC needs to stay with the Pac12/Big12

And here is why a lot of FSU fans hate the ACC. No ambition. No drive to be the best the conference can be. Instead they let UVA/Duke/UNC run everything and do nothing to help schools like Clemson and FSU.

Those schools would rather get their way all the time than to do things that would improve the football product (like fixing the divisions to enhance rivalries).

Instead FSU is saddled with Wake/BC/Cuse all in division which will kill their SOS. They are almost forced to schedule 3 tough OOC games to augment this which takes away an extra home game guaranteed and more money. The ACC does virtually nothing to help FSU in football.

Well, I think you might be confusing lack of ambition with realism. Realistically, the ACC is NOT going to catch either the Big Ten or the SEC in this contract cycle, barring another paradigm shift. What the league CAN do is get to 3rd and try to close the gap with 1 & 2.

As for UVA/UNC/Duke running things, I agree that's the way it used to be but I don't think it's that way any more. If anything, I'd say FSU/Clemson/VT run things now... of course, anything those 3 propose has to get a majority (but not necessarily UVA/UNC/Duke) behind it.

How do FSU/Clemson run things? They have a terrible division and nothing is being done about it. They aren't getting more money for going to better bowl games. Oh how about that huge exit fee increase they opposed? That power they have got their objection shut down instantly.

So what are they doing to run things? This should be interesting.

(06-07-2013 09:57 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is unfair to have Syracuse/BC in one division UNLESS you balance it with Wake/Duke in another. It certainly isn't fair for 3 of the 4 to be in FSU's division.

By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

(06-07-2013 10:03 AM)Ragu Wrote:  How do FSU/Clemson run things? They have a terrible division and nothing is being done about it. They aren't getting more money for going to better bowl games. Oh how about that huge exit fee increase they opposed? That power they have got their objection shut down instantly.

So what are they doing to run things? This should be interesting.

Clemson didn't oppose an exit fee. ACC is giving a little money for going to better bowl games. FSU just hadn't been to one up until last year. How did Louisville get an invite again? Oh that's right FSU and Clemson lobbied for them.

(06-07-2013 10:03 AM)Ragu Wrote:  How do FSU/Clemson run things? They have a terrible division and nothing is being done about it. They aren't getting more money for going to better bowl games. Oh how about that huge exit fee increase they opposed? That power they have got their objection shut down instantly.

So what are they doing to run things? This should be interesting.

It's unfair to have both FSU & Clemson in the same division, but I don't hear you complaining about that. I'm sure we can come up with a fair & balance alignment that gives FSU a game with GT every year, but to do that you might have to put Clemson in the other division (though I'm not ready to give up on a geographical division just yet)

Actually, at the request of FSU, the league IS changing the way Bowl money will be distributed. That was just discussed last month, so obviously it hasn't had a chance to go into effect yet.

The exit fee was increased to keep Notre Dame in the fold.

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:57 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is unfair to have Syracuse/BC in one division UNLESS you balance it with Wake/Duke in another. It certainly isn't fair for 3 of the 4 to be in FSU's division.

By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in teh Atlantic.

It was supposed to be 1 FLA schoo, 2 NC schools, 1 deep South, then the 4 were divided up. When Maryland left though it became 2 VA and the 2 most NE schools in separate divisions. The model no longer fit.

UVA/Duke/UNC picked their original division in the 12 team alignment. So obviously they didnt value Clemson over GT. Had they wanted Clemson, FSU wouldnt' have them.

Also I would take that division over ours in a second. It's way better than what we have now.

(06-07-2013 10:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:03 AM)Ragu Wrote:  How do FSU/Clemson run things? They have a terrible division and nothing is being done about it. They aren't getting more money for going to better bowl games. Oh how about that huge exit fee increase they opposed? That power they have got their objection shut down instantly.

So what are they doing to run things? This should be interesting.

It's unfair to have both FSU & Clemson in the same division, but I don't hear you complaining about that. I'm sure we can come up with a fair & balance alignment that gives FSU a game with GT every year, but to do that you might have to put Clemson in the other division (though I'm not ready to give up on a geographical division just yet)

Actually, at the request of FSU, the league IS changing the way Bowl money will be distributed. That was just discussed last month, so obviously it hasn't had a chance to go into effect yet.

The exit fee was increased to keep Notre Dame in the fold.

How is it unfair for Clemson/FSU to be in the same division? 1 FLorida team in each division. 1 deep South team in each division. UVA/UNC/Duke picked GT over Clemson. FSU didn't have power to pick divisions so I dont see how they can be blamed for any result.

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:57 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is unfair to have Syracuse/BC in one division UNLESS you balance it with Wake/Duke in another. It certainly isn't fair for 3 of the 4 to be in FSU's division.

By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:57 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is unfair to have Syracuse/BC in one division UNLESS you balance it with Wake/Duke in another. It certainly isn't fair for 3 of the 4 to be in FSU's division.

By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:57 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is unfair to have Syracuse/BC in one division UNLESS you balance it with Wake/Duke in another. It certainly isn't fair for 3 of the 4 to be in FSU's division.

By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

Doesn't Clemson have the same problem with recruiting areas? And yet FSU and Clemson seem to have the best classes each year in the conference.

(06-07-2013 10:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Well, I think you might be confusing lack of ambition with realism. Realistically, the ACC is NOT going to catch either the Big Ten or the SEC in this contract cycle, barring another paradigm shift. What the league CAN do is get to 3rd and try to close the gap with 1 & 2.

As for UVA/UNC/Duke running things, I agree that's the way it used to be but I don't think it's that way any more. If anything, I'd say FSU/Clemson/VT run things now... of course, anything those 3 propose has to get a majority (but not necessarily UVA/UNC/Duke) behind it.

The ACC is #3 right now and trying to close the gap with the SEC and B1G. In the longer term though, I think all 3 will be trying to catch up with the Pac-12 since they own 100% of their networks and don't have to split the profits with anyone. That assumes these networks take off in a big way but I think they will.

As for UVA/UNC/Duke still running things.... everything I've seen still tells me they do. If they ACC Basketball tourney ends up in MSG on even a rotational basis, then they are not 100% in charge anymore. But it's not just them the other 3 N.C. and VA schools probably vote with those 3 on just about every thing and that's a significant voting/vetoing block.

(06-07-2013 11:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

Doesn't Clemson have the same problem with recruiting areas? And yet FSU and Clemson seem to have the best classes each year in the conference.

That's the attitude I am talking about. Saying FSU is already in Florida and does well in recruiting so why help them out? Just throw them the 3 worst recruiting area schools in the conference and call it a day.

Like I said, the ACC does FSU no favors. They made/make themselves better in football despite the ACC. It damn sure isn't because of the conference.

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

The "recruiting angle" has already been debunked by numbers. There are only two areas in ACC country that produce a large quantity of quality recruits, Florida (which produces around 170 prospects a year) and Georgia (which produces 90+ a year). FSU have both covered quite sufficiently, which is why they are usually the highest ranked ACC team in recruiting classes year after year.

The remaining states in ACC territory are PA (with 48 a year and on a downward trend), VA (which produces about 45 a year), NC (which produces 42 a year) and NJ/NYC area (which produces 40 a year).

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 11:22 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Well, I think you might be confusing lack of ambition with realism. Realistically, the ACC is NOT going to catch either the Big Ten or the SEC in this contract cycle, barring another paradigm shift. What the league CAN do is get to 3rd and try to close the gap with 1 & 2.

As for UVA/UNC/Duke running things, I agree that's the way it used to be but I don't think it's that way any more. If anything, I'd say FSU/Clemson/VT run things now... of course, anything those 3 propose has to get a majority (but not necessarily UVA/UNC/Duke) behind it.

The ACC is #3 right now and trying to close the gap with the SEC and B1G. In the longer term though, I think all 3 will be trying to catch up with the Pac-12 since they own 100% of their networks and don't have to split the profits with anyone. That assumes these networks take off in a big way but I think they will.

The Pac will only truly cut the gap if Texas, Oklahoma, Okla State, and TTU join to get that conference to 16, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 11:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

Doesn't Clemson have the same problem with recruiting areas? And yet FSU and Clemson seem to have the best classes each year in the conference.

That's the attitude I am talking about. Saying FSU is already in Florida and does well in recruiting so why help them out? Just throw them the 3 worst recruiting area schools in the conference and call it a day.

Like I said, the ACC does FSU no favors. They made/make themselves better in football despite the ACC. It damn sure isn't because of the conference.

Ok. The ACC made you lose 50 games from 2001 to 2011. The ACC made you lose to Wake Forest like 3 years in a row. The ACC....The ACC...good gosh man get it together. You're never going to convince anyone that FSU needs a bone thrown to them for recruiting. That's just ridiculous.

(06-07-2013 11:34 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:26 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  By the same logic, if you must split up SU/BC/WF/Duke because they are the smallest fan bases, you must also split up FSU & Clemson because they are the largest. Since FSU & Clemson insist on being together, you lose that argument.

a zipper based on average attendance would look like this:

Clemson Florida State
NC State Virginia Tech
N Carolina Louisville
Virginia Miami
Ga Tech Pittsburgh
Boston Co Syracuse
Wake Fst Duke

That gives you close to even average attendance, though there are obvious problems with this alignment.

I'm splitting up those 4 because they are the least attractive matchups. But if you split up by attendance than why can't GT be with FSU instead of Pitt?

They aren't split by division. They are supposed to be split by location. That went out the window with Cuse/BC being both in the Atlantic.

It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

The "recruiting angle" has already been debunked by numbers. There are only two areas in ACC country that produce a large quantity of quality recruits, Florida (which produces around 170 prospects a year) and Georgia (which produces 90+ a year). FSU have both covered quite sufficiently, which is why they are usually the highest ranked ACC team in recruiting classes year after year.

The remaining states in ACC territory are PA (with 48 a year and on a downward trend), VA (which produces about 45 a year), NC (which produces 42 a year) and NJ/NYC area (which produces 40 a year).

Cheers,
Neil

BS. Syracuse is not New Jersey. And don't think I didn't notice you leaving out Mass and Kentucky.

Syracuse's area isn't even close to the state of Virginia. We went over this in another thread. NY is double the size of VA and has way less impact. I don't believe NFL should be compared but VA has double the players with half the population.

I know some of you have tried to debunk it but anyone that knows recruiting knows that Syracuse/BC/Louisville are the 3 worst in the ACC in regards to recruiting area.

(06-07-2013 11:44 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:58 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 10:53 AM)omniorange Wrote:  It was out the window from the beginning when they put both VA schools in the same division when the 4 of BC,MD,UVa, and VT should have been split based on location alone as UVa/BC and VT/MD.

This didn't begin with SU and Pitt joining the league.

As for "least attractive", shouldn't that be defined by TV and not by who random fans on a message board think are attractive?

Cheers,
Neil

No it wasn't. They had Maryland to give the Atlantic a team in that recruiting area before. But when Maryland left, the Atlantic should have been given Pitt. There is no reason for Syracuse/BC to be in the same division at all with the model they used to compute divisions.

Like I have said a million times though, the ACC thinks because FSU is in Florida they dont need help recruiting. So they stacked the deck against them giving them the 3 worst recruiting area teams in the conference.

Doesn't Clemson have the same problem with recruiting areas? And yet FSU and Clemson seem to have the best classes each year in the conference.

That's the attitude I am talking about. Saying FSU is already in Florida and does well in recruiting so why help them out? Just throw them the 3 worst recruiting area schools in the conference and call it a day.

Like I said, the ACC does FSU no favors. They made/make themselves better in football despite the ACC. It damn sure isn't because of the conference.

Ok. The ACC made you lose 50 games from 2001 to 2011. The ACC made you lose to Wake Forest like 3 years in a row. The ACC....The ACC...good gosh man get it together. You're never going to convince anyone that FSU needs a bone thrown to them for recruiting. That's just ridiculous.

Like I said, you exhibit the typical attitude of the ACC fan whose team gets its way in everything. Why shouldn't the league help all of its members equally? Because FSU is in Florida they shouldn't be helped at all in recruiting? That is the part that is ridiculous.

No the ACC didnt make FSU lose games. The problem with the ACC though is that they don't help FSU in football at all.

(06-07-2013 11:47 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:34 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The "recruiting angle" has already been debunked by numbers. There are only two areas in ACC country that produce a large quantity of quality recruits, Florida (which produces around 170 prospects a year) and Georgia (which produces 90+ a year). FSU have both covered quite sufficiently, which is why they are usually the highest ranked ACC team in recruiting classes year after year.

The remaining states in ACC territory are PA (with 48 a year and on a downward trend), VA (which produces about 45 a year), NC (which produces 42 a year) and NJ/NYC area (which produces 40 a year).

Cheers,
Neil

BS. Syracuse is not New Jersey. And don't think I didn't notice you leaving out Mass and Kentucky.

Syracuse's area isn't even close to the state of Virginia. We went over this in another thread. NY is double the size of VA and has way less impact. I don't believe NFL should be compared but VA has double the players with half the population.

I know some of you have tried to debunk it but anyone that knows recruiting knows that Syracuse/BC/Louisville are the 3 worst in the ACC in regards to recruiting area.

The point, which you keep dodging, is that after Florida and Georgia there are no great recruiting states in ACC territory. The recruiting angle is a red herring. You simply want as fans to play the teams that you want and everything proceeds from that pov.

I brought up NJ/NYC for a reason to give you an opening for a legitimate request FSU might make of the ACC. But, not surprisingly, it sailed over your head.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 11:54 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:47 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:34 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The "recruiting angle" has already been debunked by numbers. There are only two areas in ACC country that produce a large quantity of quality recruits, Florida (which produces around 170 prospects a year) and Georgia (which produces 90+ a year). FSU have both covered quite sufficiently, which is why they are usually the highest ranked ACC team in recruiting classes year after year.

The remaining states in ACC territory are PA (with 48 a year and on a downward trend), VA (which produces about 45 a year), NC (which produces 42 a year) and NJ/NYC area (which produces 40 a year).

Cheers,
Neil

BS. Syracuse is not New Jersey. And don't think I didn't notice you leaving out Mass and Kentucky.

Syracuse's area isn't even close to the state of Virginia. We went over this in another thread. NY is double the size of VA and has way less impact. I don't believe NFL should be compared but VA has double the players with half the population.

I know some of you have tried to debunk it but anyone that knows recruiting knows that Syracuse/BC/Louisville are the 3 worst in the ACC in regards to recruiting area.

The point, which you keep dodging, is that after Florida and Georgia there are no great recruiting states in ACC territory. The recruiting angle is a red herring. You simply want as fans to play the teams that you want and everything proceeds from that pov.

I brought up NJ/NYC for a reason to give you an opening for a legitimate request FSU might make of the ACC. But, not surprisingly, it sailed over your head.

Cheers,
Neil

Virginia is a very good recruiting area. FSU gets a lot of players out of Maryland/VA/DC.

Dont' know what request FSU could make other than moving the Syracuse game to Jersey.

(06-07-2013 11:59 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:54 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:47 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:34 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The "recruiting angle" has already been debunked by numbers. There are only two areas in ACC country that produce a large quantity of quality recruits, Florida (which produces around 170 prospects a year) and Georgia (which produces 90+ a year). FSU have both covered quite sufficiently, which is why they are usually the highest ranked ACC team in recruiting classes year after year.

The remaining states in ACC territory are PA (with 48 a year and on a downward trend), VA (which produces about 45 a year), NC (which produces 42 a year) and NJ/NYC area (which produces 40 a year).

Cheers,
Neil

BS. Syracuse is not New Jersey. And don't think I didn't notice you leaving out Mass and Kentucky.

Syracuse's area isn't even close to the state of Virginia. We went over this in another thread. NY is double the size of VA and has way less impact. I don't believe NFL should be compared but VA has double the players with half the population.

I know some of you have tried to debunk it but anyone that knows recruiting knows that Syracuse/BC/Louisville are the 3 worst in the ACC in regards to recruiting area.

The point, which you keep dodging, is that after Florida and Georgia there are no great recruiting states in ACC territory. The recruiting angle is a red herring. You simply want as fans to play the teams that you want and everything proceeds from that pov.

I brought up NJ/NYC for a reason to give you an opening for a legitimate request FSU might make of the ACC. But, not surprisingly, it sailed over your head.

Cheers,
Neil

Virginia is a very good recruiting area. FSU gets a lot of players out of Maryland/VA/DC.

Dont' know what request FSU could make other than moving the Syracuse game to Jersey.

You do realize we have a contract with MetLife Stadium to provide 10 more games between 2019-2038, right?

Now, I'm sure SU won't want all of the FSU games going there, but if FSU were to do something SU wanted perhaps they could find themselves playing at MetLife every third trip to Syracuse or so?

See how conferences are supposed to work? Give and take.

Cheers,
Neil