(01-25-2014 10:08 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  There is always a lot of historical revisionism in these types of conversations and this thread is no different in that regard.

You have to understand that in those days (late 70s/early 80s), regionalism was EXTREMELY important to everyone. That's why the Southwest Conference - which lasted until the mid-90s - was composed of all Texas schools plus Arkansas. There really wasn't any concept of markets like there is today and adding teams outside of your "footprint" seemed like an incredibly stupid idea.

Therefore, even though schools like South Carolina, Miami and Florida State were also independents who were located in the Eastern United States, they were not at the time considered "Eastern Independents" in the same way Pitt, BC, West Virginia, Syracuse, Penn State, etc., were seen as being. Rather those schools were seen as "southern schools" by the Northeastern Indies and as such there was never any serious discussion of the Northeastern schools joining up with the Southeastern schools to form an East Coast League.

That just wasn't on anyone's radar. That's why, when I read the laments about the would be Metro Football Conference, I just laugh. Pitt, Syracuse, BC, etc., were never going to join that league. Now, we may have used it for leverage but it was never going to be our home.

As for Paterno, his suggested conference was Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia, Temple, Rutgers, Army, Navy and maybe Maryland. There was no discussion of anyone south of the DC area because that would have been an absurd notion at the time.

In retrospect, it seems absurd to be open to adding the likes of Temple, Army and Navy but closed to the idea of Miami, Florida State and South Carolina, but that's looking at it with the benefit of hindsight and context.

While I agree somewhat, I don't agree totally. In particular on two items.

#1. While considered by everyone else to be an Eastern Independent WVU always has and always will identify themselves as a southern school, and IMO WVU would have been more than happy to joint either a Metro with football, or another southern oriented league with football.

#2 By the late 1980's it was becoming obvious to most forward thinking people in college sports that the football independents were quickly becoming an endangered species. Had the Metro approached the Eastern Independents in the early 1980's with a legitimate offer I agree with you, no way it happens. From about 1987 on? I'm not so sure.

The truth of the matter is other than those schools with a built in national fanbase the clock started winding down on independence on June 27th, 1984. When the NCAA lost to OU and UGA the die was cast.

(01-26-2014 02:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 11:47 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 11:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 09:36 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Imagine someone putting the eastern independents in a conference around 1980, gove or take a couple years:

Florida State
Miami
Penn State
Pitt
Syracuse
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Temple
Rutgers
Boston College
Eastern Carolina
Open

Temple was in its' heyday for hoops, so Syracuse BC and Temple would have been a good start to a hoops conference with PSU, Pitt and Miami very strong and FSU and Syracuse coming on at that time, this would have been a very solid conference. Also, the TV angle would be nice had this imaginary conference lasted to today.

Go back just a few more years, and imagine what might have happened had South Carolina persuaded Clemson to join them in leaving the ACC. I believe Maryland would have been agreeable to forming a new conference that looked like this:

South Carolina (IND)
Clemson (ACC)
Maryland (ACC)
Georgia Tech (IND)
Virginia Tech (IND)
West Virginia (IND)
Pitt (IND)
Penn State (IND)

That would have essentially killed an ACC whose Tobacco Road dominance rankled the other members. Who knows where the remnants would have gone? It's even possible that Duke and Wake might have deemphasized football and sought refuge with the basketball schools along the eastern seaboard.

But it didn't happen.

That would have rivaled the best conferences at the time. PSU, Pitt, and Clemson were major national powers at that point and Maryland was consistently good. I wonder what UVA and UNC would have done in that scenario. Maybe they are 11 and 12 to the SEC instead of South Carolina and Arkansas? Really interesting what if scenario.

I agree that UVa and UNC to the SEC would have been a likely option, leaving NC State asking to join the new league. That would have made it geographically contiguous and allowed for a balanced four home, four away schedule.

There is nothing to indicate that UNC or UVa would want to join the SEC.
Other that South Carolina, Carolina's most played opponents in the SEC were UGa and Tennessee. Carolina hasn't scheduled Georgia in a regular season game since 1966 and Tennessee since 1961. Doesn't seem like the Heels were too interested in re-connecting with their old Southern Conference foes does it?
Carolina has played 'lil carolina 12 times since the 'cocks left the ACC and NC State has played South Carolina 22 times since 1971.

Remember we are talking about an "alternate history" here - that is to say, fantasy. I would agree that neither UNV or UVa would want to join
the SEC. I'm suggesting that if they were basically stranded by the departure of three out of eight ACC schools, they might consider doing what would otherwise be unthinkable.

(01-26-2014 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  Well, the notoriously egomaniacal Paterno saw himself as the modern day Knute Rockne and his school the "new" Notre Dame. Also, for contextual purposes, you have to understand that Penn State went undefeated several times in the 60s and 70s but PSU was shut out of the MNC each time because the perception of Northeastern college football by everyone else was that it was inferior to the quality of the game in every other part of the country (that bias never quite went away).

Not every perception constitutes a bias. In the '60's and 70's, I believe northeastern college football was inferior to conferences like the Big Ten, SEC, Big 8, Southwest Conference and PAC 8. They viewed Penn State's dominance in their region as merely demonstrating that they were the tallest midget in the east. To be fair, they looked on BYU's success in the WAC in much the same way. They were equal opportunity snobs.

With hindsight, even after the Big East and ACC beefed up their football bona fides by adding schools like FSU and Miami, they still consistently ranked below all those other conferences. The difference in strength was probably never quite as great as the bigs thought it was, but it was real nonetheless.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The other leagues were at a disadvantage when compared to the Eastern Indies who could fashion their own schedules and many took advantage of that freedom.

With Penn State in particular, because they have always drawn well no matter who they play, and - to be fair - because of their remote location (State College, PA really is in the middle of nowhere), they always had a weaker schedule than most of the other indies.

The Penn Staters would say things like, "We're playing Brown because that is JoePa's alma mater," but most pollsters saw through that BS. PSU always had a light schedule - until the 80s. After being snubbed several times in the polls, they started scheduling the Alabamas, Nebraskas and USCs of the world. Prior to the 80s, they would basically play Pitt, SU, BC, WVU, Temple, Rutgers and then the service academies and usually an Ivy or two.

Then, at the end of the year, they'd all piss and moan about Texas being selected over them for the MNC even though both teams were undefeated. It was hilarious to see them try to rationalize how beating Yale was just like beating Texas A&M.

The problem I always had with that anti-Eastern bias was that I was told my whole life how weak the East was as compared with the rest of college football and yet year after year after year, as I watched NFL games, they were dominated by guys who played for those very same Eastern Indies or in the Big East.

The idea that guys like Dan Marino, Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, Jack Ham, Ray Lewis, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, Ed Reed, et al., suddenly became great once they reached the NFL always struck me as being patently ludicrous.

Another frustration was that our teams would very often beat the ever living schit out of the SEC champ or Big 8 champ or SWC champ in bowl games and those results were basically ignored by the national media because it didn't jive with their narrative or their readers' biases. That was extremely frustrating.

In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact. Even in our last year in the league, Louisville beat the hell out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl and the narrative immediately became about Florida mailing it in and all this other BS instead of acknowledging that - gasp - maybe they were wrong? To me, Louisville just flat out looked better than the Gators. I understand that's taboo to say but I'm not sure how even the most highly motivated Gator team was ever going to run with that UofL team or stop Bridgewater - who was clearly the best QB they had faced that year.

Now the ACC gets to wear that hat and trust me it's not remotely fun and that's mostly because it's usually BS.

BTW, Pitt and Penn State were obviously fierce rivals for decades but it really wasn't until the 70s that it reached its boiling point.

After seeing his team snubbed for the MNC several times in the 60s and 70s, Paterno went on a national media campaign to improve the perception of Eastern football and Penn State in particular. As you could imagine, Paterno lost his ever-loving mind when Pitt, not Penn State, became the first school to take advantage of all of his PR leg-work by sweeping to the 1976 MNC.

The truth is a LOT of dominoes had to fall our way just to get into that position and lots of teams had to lose. Also, we benefited from - of all things - beating Penn State on national TV and then beating the hell out of SEC champ UGA in the Sugar Bowl (27-3).

At that point, for Paterno the gloves came off and he did everything he could to diminish Pitt and any other school he saw as a threat to his empire. That is when all the sanctimony started in earnest and from that point forward, everyone who beat them with any regularity - whether it was Pitt or Syracuse or later Miami or Ohio State or Michigan - was full of inferior students who were paid to be there and were all drug addicts and all the rest of it.

That's Paterno in a nutshell and that is why Penn State covered up all of those child rapes. You have to understand that for decades, Penn State never lost a game fair and square. Every single loss was attributable to them doing it the right way in a sea of cheaters. Therefore, it wasn't really a loss at all.

Pretty good deal if you can get it.

Well, if that were to get stripped away, what would PSU be? Basically, they'd be Iowa, a pretty good program most years but clearly not on the same level as Ohio State and Michigan.

They were ALWAYS seen as liars to anyone who paid attention to their antics over the years. All the Sandusky affair did was expose their pathologically dishonest nonsense to the rest of the world.

(01-26-2014 06:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  Remember we are talking about an "alternate history" here - that is to say, fantasy. I would agree that neither UNV or UVa would want to join
the SEC. I'm suggesting that if they were basically stranded by the departure of three out of eight ACC schools, they might consider doing what would otherwise be unthinkable.

The whole problem is football conferences weren't just created out of thin air back then. The independents liked being independent, and it made financial sense. Alternate history or not, being a powerful independent was extremely lucrative and better than a conference, especially for northeast schools like Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse, who were the only major powers in the region.

Another thing, there were less games and the schedules were constructed accordingly. With no history between Penn State and Georgia Tech or Clemson, there is no interest back then when college football was all about pageantry and rivalries. Georgia Tech wanted to play academically similar schools and their deep south rivals. Clemson was not at their "A game" in the 70's so they really weren't in a position to take risks. The 70's (the time in which this ACC exile would have taken place) were dominated by UNC and Maryland, believe it or not.

(01-26-2014 10:40 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  Well, the notoriously egomaniacal Paterno saw himself as the modern day Knute Rockne and his school the "new" Notre Dame. Also, for contextual purposes, you have to understand that Penn State went undefeated several times in the 60s and 70s but PSU was shut out of the MNC each time because the perception of Northeastern college football by everyone else was that it was inferior to the quality of the game in every other part of the country (that bias never quite went away).

Not every perception constitutes a bias. In the '60's and 70's, I believe northeastern college football was inferior to conferences like the Big Ten, SEC, Big 8, Southwest Conference and PAC 8. They viewed Penn State's dominance in their region as merely demonstrating that they were the tallest midget in the east. To be fair, they looked on BYU's success in the WAC in much the same way. They were equal opportunity snobs.

With hindsight, even after the Big East and ACC beefed up their football bona fides by adding schools like FSU and Miami, they still consistently ranked below all those other conferences. The difference in strength was probably never quite as great as the bigs thought it was, but it was real nonetheless.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The other leagues were at a disadvantage when compared to the Eastern Indies who could fashion their own schedules and many took advantage of that freedom.

With Penn State in particular, because they have always drawn well no matter who they play, and - to be fair - because of their remote location (State College, PA really is in the middle of nowhere), they always had a weaker schedule than most of the other indies.

The Penn Staters would say things like, "We're playing Brown because that is JoePa's alma mater," but most pollsters saw through that BS. PSU always had a light schedule - until the 80s. After being snubbed several times in the polls, they started scheduling the Alabamas, Nebraskas and USCs of the world. Prior to the 80s, they would basically play Pitt, SU, BC, WVU, Temple, Rutgers and then the service academies and usually an Ivy or two.

Then, at the end of the year, they'd all piss and moan about Texas being selected over them for the MNC even though both teams were undefeated. It was hilarious to see them try to rationalize how beating Yale was just like beating Texas A&M.

The problem I always had with that anti-Eastern bias was that I was told my whole life how weak the East was as compared with the rest of college football and yet year after year after year, as I watched NFL games, they were dominated by guys who played for those very same Eastern Indies or in the Big East.

The idea that guys like Dan Marino, Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, Jack Ham, Ray Lewis, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, Ed Reed, et al., suddenly became great once they reached the NFL always struck me as being patently ludicrous.

Another frustration was that our teams would very often beat the ever living schit out of the SEC champ or Big 8 champ or SWC champ in bowl games and those results were basically ignored by the national media because it didn't jive with their narrative or their readers' biases. That was extremely frustrating.

In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact. Even in our last year in the league, Louisville beat the hell out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl and the narrative immediately became about Florida mailing it in and all this other BS instead of acknowledging that - gasp - maybe they were wrong? To me, Louisville just flat out looked better than the Gators. I understand that's taboo to say but I'm not sure how even the most highly motivated Gator team was ever going to run with that UofL team or stop Bridgewater - who was clearly the best QB they had faced that year.

Now the ACC gets to wear that hat and trust me it's not remotely fun and that's mostly because it's usually BS.

Pitt always had the added benefit of playing ND every year, so they had that extra opportunity to impress voters that PSU didn't have because they didn't play them until the '80s. The '76 season, Pitt's schedule wasn't that great (PSU, ND, WVU, Syracuse, Navy, Army, Temple, GT, Miami (Fl), Louisville, Duke) but cruising against ND gave them credibility.

Pitt's schedule almost always was Syracuse, ND, WVU, and PSU, then usually 4 schools out of the five other "lesser" Eastern independents Navy, Army, BC, Rutgers, and Temple and then 3 national programs with Miami being the most repeated opponent outside the Northeast.

Just a side note, it's interesting they had five current ACC schools on their '76 schedule.

(01-26-2014 10:40 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  ...The problem I always had with that anti-Eastern bias was that I was told my whole life how weak the East was as compared with the rest of college football and yet year after year after year, as I watched NFL games, they were dominated by guys who played for those very same Eastern Indies or in the Big East.

The idea that guys like Dan Marino, Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, Jack Ham, Ray Lewis, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, Ed Reed, et al., suddenly became great once they reached the NFL always struck me as being patently ludicrous.

Another frustration was that our teams would very often beat the ever living schit out of the SEC champ or Big 8 champ or SWC champ in bowl games and those results were basically ignored by the national media because it didn't jive with their narrative or their readers' biases. That was extremely frustrating.

In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact. Even in our last year in the league, Louisville beat the hell out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl and the narrative immediately became about Florida mailing it in and all this other BS instead of acknowledging that - gasp - maybe they were wrong? To me, Louisville just flat out looked better than the Gators. I understand that's taboo to say but I'm not sure how even the most highly motivated Gator team was ever going to run with that UofL team or stop Bridgewater - who was clearly the best QB they had faced that year.

Now the ACC gets to wear that hat and trust me it's not remotely fun and that's mostly because it's usually BS.

The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

(01-27-2014 01:07 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  ...Pitt's schedule almost always was Syracuse, ND, WVU, and PSU, then usually 4 schools out of the five other "lesser" Eastern independents Navy, Army, BC, Rutgers, and Temple and then 3 national programs with Miami being the most repeated opponent outside the Northeast.

Just a side note, it's interesting they had five current ACC schools on their '76 schedule.

So, you are saying that Pitt played 5 ACC schools per year 40 years ago and now they are full members... so Notre Dame will join in 40 more years?

In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact.

There was a self-fulfilling prophecy at work there during this era. Very often, neither the BE nor the ACC champs were ranked high enough to get matched up against the traditional powers, so they played each other because they were guaranteed a spot in the BCS. The ACC's BCS bowl record was pretty abysmal, so the BE champs weren't given much credit when they won.

Now that we've essentially merged, we have a better shot at a marquee game. But don't be too surprised if we wind up playing the G5 team that gets an automatic berth, because that preserves the narrative.

(01-26-2014 11:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 06:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  Remember we are talking about an "alternate history" here - that is to say, fantasy. I would agree that neither UNV or UVa would want to join
the SEC. I'm suggesting that if they were basically stranded by the departure of three out of eight ACC schools, they might consider doing what would otherwise be unthinkable.

The whole problem is football conferences weren't just created out of thin air back then. The independents liked being independent, and it made financial sense. Alternate history or not, being a powerful independent was extremely lucrative and better than a conference, especially for northeast schools like Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse, who were the only major powers in the region.

Another thing, there were less games and the schedules were constructed accordingly. With no history between Penn State and Georgia Tech or Clemson, there is no interest back then when college football was all about pageantry and rivalries. Georgia Tech wanted to play academically similar schools and their deep south rivals. Clemson was not at their "A game" in the 70's so they really weren't in a position to take risks. The 70's (the time in which this ACC exile would have taken place) were dominated by UNC and Maryland, believe it or not.

My personal history with the ACC only dates back to the early 70's, since I didn't get back to the US until 1973. My recollection of Clemson was that they started getting good around '77-78. For kicks, I checked out their record in the years before that. I was surprised to learn that from 1960 to 1976, the Tigers had only one 7 win season ('74), and had a W-L record of only 79-94 plus a few ties. So you're probably spot on about their aversion to risk. But what about their relationship with South Carolina? Would they have been likely to agree with them about anything?

My impression of the Gamecocks was that they were pretty delusional about where they fit in college football. I think they truly believed Paul Dietzel was going to take them to the promised land.

(01-27-2014 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact.

There was a self-fulfilling prophecy at work there during this era. Very often, neither the BE nor the ACC champs were ranked high enough to get matched up against the traditional powers, so they played each other because they were guaranteed a spot in the BCS. The ACC's BCS bowl record was pretty abysmal, so the BE champs weren't given much credit when they won.

Now that we've essentially merged, we have a better shot at a marquee game. But don't be too surprised if we wind up playing the G5 team that gets an automatic berth, because that preserves the narrative.

Actually, the only way that could happen is in years when the Orange Bowl hosts a semi-final. Otherwise, the ACC champ would face either an SEC or B1G team or (rarely) Notre Dame.

(01-27-2014 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 06:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  Remember we are talking about an "alternate history" here - that is to say, fantasy. I would agree that neither UNV or UVa would want to join
the SEC. I'm suggesting that if they were basically stranded by the departure of three out of eight ACC schools, they might consider doing what would otherwise be unthinkable.

The whole problem is football conferences weren't just created out of thin air back then. The independents liked being independent, and it made financial sense. Alternate history or not, being a powerful independent was extremely lucrative and better than a conference, especially for northeast schools like Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse, who were the only major powers in the region.

Another thing, there were less games and the schedules were constructed accordingly. With no history between Penn State and Georgia Tech or Clemson, there is no interest back then when college football was all about pageantry and rivalries. Georgia Tech wanted to play academically similar schools and their deep south rivals. Clemson was not at their "A game" in the 70's so they really weren't in a position to take risks. The 70's (the time in which this ACC exile would have taken place) were dominated by UNC and Maryland, believe it or not.

My personal history with the ACC only dates back to the early 70's, since I didn't get back to the US until 1973. My recollection of Clemson was that they started getting good around '77-78. For kicks, I checked out their record in the years before that. I was surprised to learn that from 1960 to 1976, the Tigers had only one 7 win season ('74), and had a W-L record of only 79-94 plus a few ties. So you're probably spot on about their aversion to risk. But what about their relationship with South Carolina? Would they have been likely to agree with them about anything?

My impression of the Gamecocks was that they were pretty delusional about where they fit in college football. I think they truly believed Paul Dietzel was going to take them to the promised land.

some things never change...

(01-27-2014 11:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact.

There was a self-fulfilling prophecy at work there during this era. Very often, neither the BE nor the ACC champs were ranked high enough to get matched up against the traditional powers, so they played each other because they were guaranteed a spot in the BCS. The ACC's BCS bowl record was pretty abysmal, so the BE champs weren't given much credit when they won.

Now that we've essentially merged, we have a better shot at a marquee game. But don't be too surprised if we wind up playing the G5 team that gets an automatic berth, because that preserves the narrative.

Actually, the only way that could happen is in years when the Orange Bowl hosts a semi-final. Otherwise, the ACC champ would face either an SEC or B1G team or (rarely) Notre Dame.

This period in time was a function of Miami and FSU having their programs in the toilet and forcing VT and GT to play above their talent levels. I don't foresee that being a problem now that FSU has recovered and Clemson seems to have overcome Clemsoning.

(01-27-2014 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

That is why I am against the nine game league schedule. I understand that will mean fewer opportunities to see ACC teams from the other division but given our status in this hierarchy, I think that is a small price to pay.

Instead, I think we should all take that would be ninth league game and aggressively schedule OOC games. That will be good for our TV contract too. Play anyone who will agree to a home and home. If you are Florida State, do what Bowden did and agree to play Alabama on a neutral field - Atlanta perhaps? If you are Miami, go to Dallas to play Oklahoma or Texas. Syracuse can play Rutgers in the Meadowlands or Maryland in Fed Ex Field.

West Virginia's AD, Luck has said that he would immediately sign a long term deal to play the Panthers if Pitt were interested. Maybe we should take him up on that offer? Their fans are ridiculous but it would give the ACC one more made-for-TV game to broadcast. If it were up to me, Pitt would approach Penn State and West Virginia about playing BOTH teams every single year.

I say let's get everyone we can out there to play games against teams from leagues that matter. I understand that we can't make those teams play us but we can certainly ask and we can agree to either home-and-homes or one off neutral site games.

(01-27-2014 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

(01-27-2014 12:11 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is why I am against the nine game league schedule. I understand that will mean fewer opportunities to see ACC teams from the other division but given our status in this hierarchy, I think that is a small price to pay.

Instead, I think we should all take that would be ninth league game and aggressively schedule OOC games. That will be good for our TV contract too. Play anyone who will agree to a home and home. If you are Florida State, do what Bowden did and agree to play Alabama on a neutral field - Atlanta perhaps? If you are Miami, go to Dallas to play Oklahoma or Texas. Syracuse can play Rutgers in the Meadowlands or Maryland in Fed Ex Field.

Yes, but I'm not so sure FSU is the team dodging here. Ever notice how the Chick-fil-A kickoff game always seems to be Alabama, LSU or Auburn against the 2nd best ACC team?

(01-27-2014 12:11 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  West Virginia's AD, Luck has said that he would immediately sign a long term deal to play the Panthers if Pitt were interested. Maybe we should take him up on that offer? Their fans are ridiculous but it would give the ACC one more made-for-TV game to broadcast. If it were up to me, Pitt would approach Penn State and West Virginia about playing BOTH teams every single year.

I say let's get everyone we can out there to play games against teams from leagues that matter. I understand that we can't make those teams play us but we can certainly ask and we can agree to either home-and-homes or one off neutral site games.

YES, please! That's what I'm talking about!

VT is planning on playing 2 P5 teams pretty much every year going forward - LINK.

Oddly enough, VT has Penn State, WVU and Notre Dame all on the schedule for 2022 (if nothing changes). 2017 and 2018 are still open, and time is running out on those seasons, so I hope the new AD finds some good P5 opponents for those years soon...

I don't think Florida State is necessarily dodging anyone. I just want to see the ACC to become more aggressive in engaging teams from other P5 leagues.

The Big Ten is allegedly considering an agreement where they only play FBS teams going forward and there is some talk of them only scheduling fellow P5 schools OOC. If that's true, I'd like to see Pitt try to play Ohio State and/or Michigan in coming years. The other Northern ACC schools should also have that ambition. Hell, what's wrong with Clemson signing a deal to play Ohio State? As we all know, they certainly have some history together. Why wouldn't North Carolina look for a home and home vs. Michigan? How about Duke and Northwestern at Wrigley Field or Soldier Field?

All of those games are much more appealing to the average fan than more games between Boston College and Duke or NC State vs. Pitt.

(01-27-2014 12:11 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

That is why I am against the nine game league schedule. I understand that will mean fewer opportunities to see ACC teams from the other division but given our status in this hierarchy, I think that is a small price to pay.

Instead, I think we should all take that would be ninth league game and aggressively schedule OOC games. That will be good for our TV contract too. Play anyone who will agree to a home and home. If you are Florida State, do what Bowden did and agree to play Alabama on a neutral field - Atlanta perhaps? If you are Miami, go to Dallas to play Oklahoma or Texas. Syracuse can play Rutgers in the Meadowlands or Maryland in Fed Ex Field.

West Virginia's AD, Luck has said that he would immediately sign a long term deal to play the Panthers if Pitt were interested. Maybe we should take him up on that offer? Their fans are ridiculous but it would give the ACC one more made-for-TV game to broadcast. If it were up to me, Pitt would approach Penn State and West Virginia about playing BOTH teams every single year.

I say let's get everyone we can out there to play games against teams from leagues that matter. I understand that we can't make those teams play us but we can certainly ask and we can agree to either home-and-homes or one off neutral site games.

I agree 100%. If PSU continues to be difficult then Pitt should just schedule WVU for a yearly series, they would do it in a heartbeat. Then if PSU comes around to the idea of playing a yearly series beyond the 4 years right now then we should just add that on. I would be so excited to see Pitt play both every year.

(01-27-2014 12:36 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't think Florida State is necessarily dodging anyone. I just want to see the ACC to become more aggressive in engaging teams from other P5 leagues.

The Big Ten is allegedly considering an agreement where they only play FBS teams going forward and there is some talk of them only scheduling fellow P5 schools OOC. If that's true, I'd like to see Pitt try to play Ohio State and/or Michigan in coming years. The other Northern ACC schools should also have that ambition. Hell, what's wrong with Clemson signing a deal to play Ohio State? As we all know, they certainly have some history together. Why wouldn't North Carolina look for a home and home vs. Michigan? How about Duke and Northwestern at Wrigley Field or Soldier Field?

All of those games are much more appealing to the average fan than more games between Boston College and Duke or NC State vs. Pitt.

I don't see the B1G limiting their OOC schedule to P5 opponents. But I do think they will drop FCS schools. Because of their footprint, the B1G can still schedule the equivalent of FCS just as they always have. Their OOC menus have always included a healthy serving of big MAC opponents, whom they almost always beat. I don't see that changing.

(01-27-2014 01:01 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 12:11 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

That is why I am against the nine game league schedule. I understand that will mean fewer opportunities to see ACC teams from the other division but given our status in this hierarchy, I think that is a small price to pay.

Instead, I think we should all take that would be ninth league game and aggressively schedule OOC games. That will be good for our TV contract too. Play anyone who will agree to a home and home. If you are Florida State, do what Bowden did and agree to play Alabama on a neutral field - Atlanta perhaps? If you are Miami, go to Dallas to play Oklahoma or Texas. Syracuse can play Rutgers in the Meadowlands or Maryland in Fed Ex Field.

West Virginia's AD, Luck has said that he would immediately sign a long term deal to play the Panthers if Pitt were interested. Maybe we should take him up on that offer? Their fans are ridiculous but it would give the ACC one more made-for-TV game to broadcast. If it were up to me, Pitt would approach Penn State and West Virginia about playing BOTH teams every single year.

I say let's get everyone we can out there to play games against teams from leagues that matter. I understand that we can't make those teams play us but we can certainly ask and we can agree to either home-and-homes or one off neutral site games.

I agree 100%. If PSU continues to be difficult then Pitt should just schedule WVU for a yearly series, they would do it in a heartbeat. Then if PSU comes around to the idea of playing a yearly series beyond the 4 years right now then we should just add that on. I would be so excited to see Pitt play both every year.

Pitt's situation is a little unique, in that both Penn State and West Virginia would be games the networks would like to feature. Schools like BC, Syracuse, and all four NC teams don't really have some natural rival that isn't already in the conference. They don't have as much to gain in exchange for giving up that extra .5 home game somebody correctly explained.

(01-26-2014 10:40 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  Well, the notoriously egomaniacal Paterno saw himself as the modern day Knute Rockne and his school the "new" Notre Dame. Also, for contextual purposes, you have to understand that Penn State went undefeated several times in the 60s and 70s but PSU was shut out of the MNC each time because the perception of Northeastern college football by everyone else was that it was inferior to the quality of the game in every other part of the country (that bias never quite went away).

Not every perception constitutes a bias. In the '60's and 70's, I believe northeastern college football was inferior to conferences like the Big Ten, SEC, Big 8, Southwest Conference and PAC 8. They viewed Penn State's dominance in their region as merely demonstrating that they were the tallest midget in the east. To be fair, they looked on BYU's success in the WAC in much the same way. They were equal opportunity snobs.

With hindsight, even after the Big East and ACC beefed up their football bona fides by adding schools like FSU and Miami, they still consistently ranked below all those other conferences. The difference in strength was probably never quite as great as the bigs thought it was, but it was real nonetheless.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The other leagues were at a disadvantage when compared to the Eastern Indies who could fashion their own schedules and many took advantage of that freedom.

With Penn State in particular, because they have always drawn well no matter who they play, and - to be fair - because of their remote location (State College, PA really is in the middle of nowhere), they always had a weaker schedule than most of the other indies.

The Penn Staters would say things like, "We're playing Brown because that is JoePa's alma mater," but most pollsters saw through that BS. PSU always had a light schedule - until the 80s. After being snubbed several times in the polls, they started scheduling the Alabamas, Nebraskas and USCs of the world. Prior to the 80s, they would basically play Pitt, SU, BC, WVU, Temple, Rutgers and then the service academies and usually an Ivy or two.

Then, at the end of the year, they'd all piss and moan about Texas being selected over them for the MNC even though both teams were undefeated. It was hilarious to see them try to rationalize how beating Yale was just like beating Texas A&M.

The problem I always had with that anti-Eastern bias was that I was told my whole life how weak the East was as compared with the rest of college football and yet year after year after year, as I watched NFL games, they were dominated by guys who played for those very same Eastern Indies or in the Big East.

The idea that guys like Dan Marino, Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, Jack Ham, Ray Lewis, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, Ed Reed, et al., suddenly became great once they reached the NFL always struck me as being patently ludicrous.

Another frustration was that our teams would very often beat the ever living schit out of the SEC champ or Big 8 champ or SWC champ in bowl games and those results were basically ignored by the national media because it didn't jive with their narrative or their readers' biases. That was extremely frustrating.

In the BCS era, for example, the Big East had a winning record in BCS games and nobody would even acknowledge that fact. Even in our last year in the league, Louisville beat the hell out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl and the narrative immediately became about Florida mailing it in and all this other BS instead of acknowledging that - gasp - maybe they were wrong? To me, Louisville just flat out looked better than the Gators. I understand that's taboo to say but I'm not sure how even the most highly motivated Gator team was ever going to run with that UofL team or stop Bridgewater - who was clearly the best QB they had faced that year.

Now the ACC gets to wear that hat and trust me it's not remotely fun and that's mostly because it's usually BS.

I probably hate Penn State almost as much as you do, but I don't think it's true that Penn State scheduled Ivy league schools on a regular basis. Aside from its regular mix of eastern independents, its '68 ( http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...edule.html ), '69 ( http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...edule.html ) and '73 ( http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...edule.html ) undefeated teams scheduled Pac 8, Big 8, Big Ten and ACC schools aside from one MAC school - Ohio. Penn State's biggest problem was that it went undefeated in years in which there were other higher profile undefeated schools (Ohio St. in '68, Texas in '69 and Notre Dame in '73). The '76 Pitt team did benefit from Penn State's lobbying, but as much as anything, had the good sense to be the only undefeated team that season! Penn State did do one particularly arrogant thing relating to the MNC, though - they turned down the chance to play Texas in the 1970 Cotton Bowl in a game that would have given them a chance to prove it on the field.

(01-27-2014 01:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 01:01 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 12:11 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only real solution to this that I see is to schedule tough OOC games, which the ACC does better than any other league. If FSU beats Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida... or Clemson beats Georgia and S Carolina... or Va Tech beats Ohio State, Pitt beats Iowa, and BC beats USC... these OOC games can redefine how the conference is perceived.

That is why I am against the nine game league schedule. I understand that will mean fewer opportunities to see ACC teams from the other division but given our status in this hierarchy, I think that is a small price to pay.

Instead, I think we should all take that would be ninth league game and aggressively schedule OOC games. That will be good for our TV contract too. Play anyone who will agree to a home and home. If you are Florida State, do what Bowden did and agree to play Alabama on a neutral field - Atlanta perhaps? If you are Miami, go to Dallas to play Oklahoma or Texas. Syracuse can play Rutgers in the Meadowlands or Maryland in Fed Ex Field.

West Virginia's AD, Luck has said that he would immediately sign a long term deal to play the Panthers if Pitt were interested. Maybe we should take him up on that offer? Their fans are ridiculous but it would give the ACC one more made-for-TV game to broadcast. If it were up to me, Pitt would approach Penn State and West Virginia about playing BOTH teams every single year.

I say let's get everyone we can out there to play games against teams from leagues that matter. I understand that we can't make those teams play us but we can certainly ask and we can agree to either home-and-homes or one off neutral site games.

I agree 100%. If PSU continues to be difficult then Pitt should just schedule WVU for a yearly series, they would do it in a heartbeat. Then if PSU comes around to the idea of playing a yearly series beyond the 4 years right now then we should just add that on. I would be so excited to see Pitt play both every year.

Pitt's situation is a little unique, in that both Penn State and West Virginia would be games the networks would like to feature. Schools like BC, Syracuse, and all four NC teams don't really have some natural rival that isn't already in the conference. They don't have as much to gain in exchange for giving up that extra .5 home game somebody correctly explained.

SU has rivalry games with WVU and PSU. They aren't as intense at with Pitt, but they are legit rivalry games. UMD and NW are semi rivalry games. Beyond that, RU hates us a lot, but we're largely indifferent to them.