(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Other than the years the Orange Bowl host the playoffs the maximum number of years that Notre Dame can appear in the Orange Bowl is two during the length of the contract, so other than the playoff years either the SEC or the B1G will be in the bowl.

The only variance in the Orange Bowl payout is the years when Notre Dame participates, and even then there is no set figure other than the typical ACC vague "significant amount less".

Nobody knows. The people around here who worship at the altar that is the ACC swear we get the full payment, but these are the same people who say an ACC TV network is a sure fire deal and that the Russell Athletic is going to increase their payout to match what the Chick-fil-a used to pay us without a shred of evidence.

So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

8 team playoff you short sighted dip shyte.

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Other than the years the Orange Bowl host the playoffs the maximum number of years that Notre Dame can appear in the Orange Bowl is two during the length of the contract, so other than the playoff years either the SEC or the B1G will be in the bowl.

The only variance in the Orange Bowl payout is the years when Notre Dame participates, and even then there is no set figure other than the typical ACC vague "significant amount less".

Nobody knows. The people around here who worship at the altar that is the ACC swear we get the full payment, but these are the same people who say an ACC TV network is a sure fire deal and that the Russell Athletic is going to increase their payout to match what the Chick-fil-a used to pay us without a shred of evidence.

So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Are we talking ACC 2013 Bowls vs ACC 2014 Bowls or something else? Are you changing this to ACC Bowls to SEC/B1G Bowls or what?

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Other than the years the Orange Bowl host the playoffs the maximum number of years that Notre Dame can appear in the Orange Bowl is two during the length of the contract, so other than the playoff years either the SEC or the B1G will be in the bowl.

The only variance in the Orange Bowl payout is the years when Notre Dame participates, and even then there is no set figure other than the typical ACC vague "significant amount less".

Nobody knows. The people around here who worship at the altar that is the ACC swear we get the full payment, but these are the same people who say an ACC TV network is a sure fire deal and that the Russell Athletic is going to increase their payout to match what the Chick-fil-a used to pay us without a shred of evidence.

So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. [b] Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. [/b] Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Nice! You see, I thought we were talking about the ACC and their Bowls. Then, as you do, you switch the convo. away from the topic. Are you asking if the 2014-2015 ACC Bowl Line-up is better than the 2013-2014 line-up? I think it is!

(04-23-2014 10:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

8 team playoff you short sighted dip shyte.

Since your rabbit ass can't post all your thoughts in one thread here we go.

What 8 team playoff? We currently have a four team playoff.

(04-23-2014 11:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Are we talking ACC 2013 Bowls vs ACC 2014 Bowls or something else? Are you changing this to ACC Bowls to SEC/B1G Bowls or what?

Since your rabbit ass can't post all your thoughts in one thread here we go.

Both.

Our 2014 bowl situation is worse than our 2013 bowl situation and worse than the SEC & B1G.

(04-23-2014 11:24 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So you are saying you don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. [b] Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. [/b] Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Nice! You see, I thought we were talking about the ACC and their Bowls. Then, as you do, you switch the convo. away from the topic. Are you asking if the 2014-2015 ACC Bowl Line-up is better than the 2013-2014 line-up? I think it is!

Since your rabbit ass can't post all your thoughts in one thread here we go.

Prove it.

Remember now, to be a true improvement it has to close the gap in bowl payments between the ACC and the conferences they compete with. The SEC, B1G, Big XII, and Pac12. If the already huge gap doesn't decrease no amount of spin can claim it as a win (although I fully expect the majority of the posters here to claim so since they blindly think the ACC hung the moon and stars)

So big guy, how is the 2014 ACC bowl alignment a win over what we had in 2014?

And try to answer in one post this time around Peter Rabbit.

(04-23-2014 11:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Not at all. I'm saying with the information at hand we are going to be behind the SEC and B1G in premier bowl money all but a possible two out of the next twelve years. It very well could be twelve out of twelve if Notre Dame doesn't qualify for the Orange Bowl.

Now it's your turn, since you seem so determined to prove me wrong. How are the 2014 ACC bowl agreements better than the 2013 ACC bowl agreements?

You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Are we talking ACC 2013 Bowls vs ACC 2014 Bowls or something else? Are you changing this to ACC Bowls to SEC/B1G Bowls or what?

Since your rabbit ass can't post all your thoughts in one thread here we go.

Both.

Our 2014 bowl situation is worse than our 2013 bowl situation and worse than the SEC & B1G.

That is just not true. As far as the SEC & B1G...who cares. But the 2014 bowls for the ACC in competition and payout are better than 2013.

(04-23-2014 11:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  You see, with the information at hand, you can't say we will be behind the B1G or SEC in TOTAL Bowl money.

Yes I can.

The SEC gets either a share of the Sugar Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Sugar is in the playoff rotation.

The B1G gets either a share of the Rose Bowl or an assured access bowl if the Rose is in the playoff rotation.

One of the two is going to get an Orange Bowl bid, except for a maximum of two years, over the term of the contract.

The Capital One Bowl paid out $4.5 million last year. Unless the B1G is in the Orange both conferences get that bowl and the payout.

The rest may or may not be a wash, but the facts are I don't need to go any further. Even in the years the ACC gets the Cap One bid we are behind both because of the . In the years we don't we are even further behind both. Only someone incredibly stupid would need this broken down for them in such a manner. Two conferences are assured of possible spots in the highest paying bowls, the SEC and the B1G.

So, as I said earlier....YOU prove me wrong. I'm done answering your questions, you answer mine.

Are we talking ACC 2013 Bowls vs ACC 2014 Bowls or something else? Are you changing this to ACC Bowls to SEC/B1G Bowls or what?

Since your rabbit ass can't post all your thoughts in one thread here we go.

Both.

Our 2014 bowl situation is worse than our 2013 bowl situation and worse than the SEC & B1G.

That is just not true.

Really?

Our #2 bowl goes from the Chick-fil-a, one of the absolute best non BCS bowls on New Years Eve prime time unopposed by any other bowl on TV to the Russell Athletic. The little sister bowl to the Capital One, assured of a between Christmas and New Years date because of the Cap One. We get the #3 non-playoff Big XII team (behind the Sugar Bowl and Alamo) so we could potentially end up with the #4 or #5 team out of a ten team conference.

Our #3-#6 goes from the Russell Athletic, Belk, to a conglomerated mess spread from everywhere between Charlotte NC to NYC to El Paso TX with side trips to Jacksonville FL and Nashville TN mixed in. Not a whole lot of change except for the fact we added a cold weather bowl in a tiny stadium to the mix. Great if one of the northern schools is bowl eligible and meets the cut to #6, but with none of the northern schools really setting the world on fire in football and the parasites stealing bowls away it pretty much assures a southern team gets to spend a piss-pot load of money to go to a bowl that don't pay that much.

#7-#9 Military, Advocare, and Detroit Bowls. These teams get a choice between playing in an industrial wasteland (Shreveport), a stadium smaller than any other stadium in the ACC (Military), or a crime ridden wasteland (Detroit) Please tell me how this grouping is a win.

Quote:As far as the SEC & B1G...who cares.

You should care. You compete with both conferences head to head. When our revenue trails them it hurts Louisville.

Quote:But the 2014 bowls for the ACC in competition and payout are better than 2013.

I've stated my case several times. Time for you to put up or shut up.

Kap, I think you're looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

agree. some people will complain until an invite to the SEC or B1G comes in. for clemson and fsu, it just is not going to happen. the acc is by far and away the best plan B for those two.

and let's be real - the ACC is already better than the B1G on the football field. clemson beat osu (would not have been close if not for a few unforced errors) and a 6-6 cuse took down an 8-4 minnesota. the only bowl wins for the B1G this year were sparty (acc can trump it with fsu's win) and a win over a murray-less uga. the demographics will continue to hurt the B1G football product. so will the additions of rutgers and maryland (who lost to a mac team in the bowl).

the glass is half full, IMO.

(04-24-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Kap, I think you've looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

Personally, I think the ACC is perfect for both Clemson and FSU. There is no way that Clemson plays in major bowls being in the SEC. SC has had the better team the last few years and they still haven't made it to a major bowl. Clemson can easily go 10-2 or 11-1 every year and play in a major bowl.

FSU has the best of both worlds. They are perceived as a national power and they have an easier path to the playoffs/major bowls.

Why on earth would you give that up?

(04-24-2014 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  agree. some people will complain until an invite to the SEC or B1G comes in. for clemson and fsu, it just is not going to happen. the acc is by far and away the best plan B for those two.

and let's be real - the ACC is already better than the B1G on the football field. clemson beat osu (would not have been close if not for a few unforced errors) and a 6-6 cuse took down an 8-4 minnesota. the only bowl wins for the B1G this year were sparty (acc can trump it with fsu's win) and a win over a murray-less uga. the demographics will continue to hurt the B1G football product. so will the additions of rutgers and maryland (who lost to a mac team in the bowl).

the glass is half full, IMO.

(04-24-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Kap, I think you've looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium [Military Bowl] is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

Both of these are 100% correct IMO. No conference took a bigger hit than the SEC, which lost both the Chick-Fil-A and the Cotton Bowl tie-ins.

The ACC has gained access to the Capital One Bowl (guaranteed a minimum of 3 times in 12 years) and the Gator Bowl (6 times if I understand the arrangement). In exchange, the ACC trades the Music City Bowl for the Gator - a very fair trade, IMO.

As mentioned, the opponents are upgraded, which means fewer derp opportunities and more chances for glory.

Yeah, the ACC is still not getting as much bowl money as the SEC - they NEVER have. However, the ACC is closer now than it's ever been, which is progress. If you used to make half as much and now you make 3/4ths, that's no reason to complain (though you probably shouldn't be complacent either)

Nobody is saying it's perfect, nor should anyone "worship" the ACC. On the other hand, anyone who claims it isn't better than it was just a couple of years ago just sounds foolish.

Boxers, or briefs.

Ask him if staying at a eight game schedule verses a 9 game schedule with Notre Dame's agreement with 5 games will have any effect on the possible move of permanent rivals that have been talked about here lately. I mean as of right now the census is a 8 game schedule with ND 5 games every year, and what the talk has been 3permanent rivals and everyone floats to where they make the schedule every two years. Would a 9 game schedule conflict any of this what so ever or would we just see a fourth permanent rival...or would we see some sort of a 8+1 agreement with the other conference's or what???

I may have went a little much into details, but I think you get the where I am going here.

(04-24-2014 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  agree. some people will complain until an invite to the SEC or B1G comes in. for clemson and fsu, it just is not going to happen. the acc is by far and away the best plan B for those two.

and let's be real - the ACC is already better than the B1G on the football field. clemson beat osu (would not have been close if not for a few unforced errors) and a 6-6 cuse took down an 8-4 minnesota. the only bowl wins for the B1G this year were sparty (acc can trump it with fsu's win) and a win over a murray-less uga. the demographics will continue to hurt the B1G football product. so will the additions of rutgers and maryland (who lost to a mac team in the bowl).

the glass is half full, IMO.

(04-24-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Kap, I think you've looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium [Military Bowl] is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

Both of these are 100% correct IMO. No conference took a bigger hit than the SEC, which lost both the Chick-Fil-A and the Cotton Bowl tie-ins.

The ACC has gained access to the Capital One Bowl (guaranteed a minimum of 3 times in 12 years) and the Gator Bowl (6 times if I understand the arrangement). In exchange, the ACC trades the Music City Bowl for the Gator - a very fair trade, IMO.

As mentioned, the opponents are upgraded, which means fewer derp opportunities and more chances for glory.

Yeah, the ACC is still not getting as much bowl money as the SEC - they NEVER have. However, the ACC is closer now than it's ever been, which is progress. If you used to make half as much and now you make 3/4ths, that's no reason to complain (though you probably shouldn't be complacent either)

Nobody is saying it's perfect, nor should anyone "worship" the ACC. On the other hand, anyone who claims it isn't better than it was just a couple of years ago just sounds foolish.

All of what you say is correct.

The ACC is long cursed with too many Poor Mouths. We could win national titles in one school year in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and lacrosse, and there would be fans of ACC schools on the internet whining like junior high girls about what others have and how unfair it is and how we must act rashly to try to get what they have this very second.

We are very well set up for the future. Over those 5 sports named above combined, no conference is going to best us for year in and year out competitiveness. And as the 3 non-revenue sports are going to be televised much more 10 years from now than they were 5 years ago, our wide spectrum of success will pay.

10 years from now, we will see how ND playing 5 ACC games per year has helped put football recruiting. It will give us a little boost that helps us out recruit the Big Ten every year while cutting the recruiting gap with the SEC.

(04-25-2014 09:03 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  agree. some people will complain until an invite to the SEC or B1G comes in. for clemson and fsu, it just is not going to happen. the acc is by far and away the best plan B for those two.

and let's be real - the ACC is already better than the B1G on the football field. clemson beat osu (would not have been close if not for a few unforced errors) and a 6-6 cuse took down an 8-4 minnesota. the only bowl wins for the B1G this year were sparty (acc can trump it with fsu's win) and a win over a murray-less uga. the demographics will continue to hurt the B1G football product. so will the additions of rutgers and maryland (who lost to a mac team in the bowl).

the glass is half full, IMO.

(04-24-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Kap, I think you've looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium [Military Bowl] is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

Both of these are 100% correct IMO. No conference took a bigger hit than the SEC, which lost both the Chick-Fil-A and the Cotton Bowl tie-ins.

The ACC has gained access to the Capital One Bowl (guaranteed a minimum of 3 times in 12 years) and the Gator Bowl (6 times if I understand the arrangement). In exchange, the ACC trades the Music City Bowl for the Gator - a very fair trade, IMO.

As mentioned, the opponents are upgraded, which means fewer derp opportunities and more chances for glory.

Yeah, the ACC is still not getting as much bowl money as the SEC - they NEVER have. However, the ACC is closer now than it's ever been, which is progress. If you used to make half as much and now you make 3/4ths, that's no reason to complain (though you probably shouldn't be complacent either)

Nobody is saying it's perfect, nor should anyone "worship" the ACC. On the other hand, anyone who claims it isn't better than it was just a couple of years ago just sounds foolish.

All of what you say is correct.

The ACC is long cursed with too many Poor Mouths. We could win national titles in one school year in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and lacrosse, and there would be fans of ACC schools on the internet whining like junior high girls about what others have and how unfair it is and how we must act rashly to try to get what they have this very second.

We are very well set up for the future. Over those 5 sports named above combined, no conference is going to best us for year in and year out competitiveness. And as the 3 non-revenue sports are going to be televised much more 10 years from now than they were 5 years ago, our wide spectrum of success will pay.

10 years from now, we will see how ND playing 5 ACC games per year has helped put football recruiting. It will give us a little boost that helps us out recruit the Big Ten every year while cutting the recruiting gap with the SEC.

Careful about taking a long term approach around here Woad, most won't/can't understand it.

Their interview with Swofford can be found here:
http://louisvillesportslive.net/lsl-podc...-swofford/

They did a great job on the interview. Congrats.

(04-25-2014 11:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:03 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  agree. some people will complain until an invite to the SEC or B1G comes in. for clemson and fsu, it just is not going to happen. the acc is by far and away the best plan B for those two.

and let's be real - the ACC is already better than the B1G on the football field. clemson beat osu (would not have been close if not for a few unforced errors) and a 6-6 cuse took down an 8-4 minnesota. the only bowl wins for the B1G this year were sparty (acc can trump it with fsu's win) and a win over a murray-less uga. the demographics will continue to hurt the B1G football product. so will the additions of rutgers and maryland (who lost to a mac team in the bowl).

the glass is half full, IMO.

(04-24-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Kap, I think you've looking at this wrong...

1) The problem with the old bowl arrangements were who the ACC was playing, not necessarily the location. Under the old arrangement, 2 of the top 5 bowls, the ACC played the AAC/Big East. Well that's a problem if you want to improve perception. With the new agreement that's not the case anymore. I think you have to get down to bowl 7 or 8 before you see a non-major conference team. For example, instead of us playing Cincinnati in the Belk Bowl, we would have played Georgia, Ole Miss, or Miss St.

2) You are completely ignoring the Capital One deal when the B1G sends a team to the Orange, the ACC gets a team in that game. You can assume that's going to happen at least 4 or 5 times over the next 12 years.

3) Who cares if the #2 goes to Russell. Truthfully, it shouldn't be the true #2. Every year the ACC should have at least one team in the playoffs/at large bowl then another team in the OB. So the #3 ACC teams ends up in the Russell or maybe it's Notre Dame. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

4) No more crap matchups in the Orange Bowl. You're looking at a top tier team from the SEC, B1G, or even Notre Dame.

5) Navy's football stadium [Military Bowl] is slightly larger than Duke and large than Wake's. It's probably appropriately sized for a bowl of lesser teams.

My big take away for the bowls is the opponents are markedly better. Most people are going to watch on TV anyway.

Both of these are 100% correct IMO. No conference took a bigger hit than the SEC, which lost both the Chick-Fil-A and the Cotton Bowl tie-ins.

The ACC has gained access to the Capital One Bowl (guaranteed a minimum of 3 times in 12 years) and the Gator Bowl (6 times if I understand the arrangement). In exchange, the ACC trades the Music City Bowl for the Gator - a very fair trade, IMO.

As mentioned, the opponents are upgraded, which means fewer derp opportunities and more chances for glory.

Yeah, the ACC is still not getting as much bowl money as the SEC - they NEVER have. However, the ACC is closer now than it's ever been, which is progress. If you used to make half as much and now you make 3/4ths, that's no reason to complain (though you probably shouldn't be complacent either)

Nobody is saying it's perfect, nor should anyone "worship" the ACC. On the other hand, anyone who claims it isn't better than it was just a couple of years ago just sounds foolish.

All of what you say is correct.

The ACC is long cursed with too many Poor Mouths. We could win national titles in one school year in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and lacrosse, and there would be fans of ACC schools on the internet whining like junior high girls about what others have and how unfair it is and how we must act rashly to try to get what they have this very second.

We are very well set up for the future. Over those 5 sports named above combined, no conference is going to best us for year in and year out competitiveness. And as the 3 non-revenue sports are going to be televised much more 10 years from now than they were 5 years ago, our wide spectrum of success will pay.

10 years from now, we will see how ND playing 5 ACC games per year has helped put football recruiting. It will give us a little boost that helps us out recruit the Big Ten every year while cutting the recruiting gap with the SEC.

Careful about taking a long term approach around here Woad, most won't/can't understand it.

I wouldn't say it's most. It's really just several folks who seem to have a real disdain for the acc, for whatever reason. The overwhelming majority of folks here have a healthy desire to see the acc succeed and understand the Acc long term potential.

(04-24-2014 08:32 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Personally, I think the ACC is perfect for both Clemson and FSU. There is no way that Clemson plays in major bowls being in the SEC. SC has had the better team the last few years and they still haven't made it to a major bowl. Clemson can easily go 10-2 or 11-1 every year and play in a major bowl.

FSU has the best of both worlds. They are perceived as a national power and they have an easier path to the playoffs/major bowls.

Why on earth would you give that up?

The lack of an "easy path" certainly hasn't hurt the SEC's national powers.

The increased national attention, reputation, recruiting, better traveling fanbases, closer fanbases, more interesting matchups, and more revenue would all be beneficial as well.

(04-25-2014 07:03 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:32 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Personally, I think the ACC is perfect for both Clemson and FSU. There is no way that Clemson plays in major bowls being in the SEC. SC has had the better team the last few years and they still haven't made it to a major bowl. Clemson can easily go 10-2 or 11-1 every year and play in a major bowl.

FSU has the best of both worlds. They are perceived as a national power and they have an easier path to the playoffs/major bowls.

Why on earth would you give that up?

The lack of an "easy path" certainly hasn't hurt the SEC's national powers.

The increased national attention, reputation, recruiting, better traveling fanbases, closer fanbases, more interesting matchups, and more revenue would all be beneficial as well.

Outside of the SEC, how many other schools can realistically win the national title? FSU is on a very short list.....a very short list.

Increased national attention? Dude all we've heard about all summer is Jameis Winston and FSU back to the glory days, etc, etc. There has been more media attention on FSU than every other school outside of Bama. Is that not enough?

FSU makes plenty of revenue. Their short comings recently have been mostly tied to boosters. That's starting to pick up so I don't see the issue.

Like I said, FSU sits in a sweet spot like no other school. Year to year in the SEC you can slip into mediocrity---see Florida last year or Auburn post Cam Newton pre-Malzahn or Arkansas post Petrino or even Bama pre Saban. At this point, there is no reason that FSU can't go on another dominant run like they did from the late 80's to 2000.