What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

(12-18-2015 06:52 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

(12-18-2015 07:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:52 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

Since Clemson, Louisville, FSU, and GT already play SEC teams home and away, this could be an issue. 9 conference games mean every other year you're playing 5 away games in the conference. If the SEC OOC game is also on the road, that's 6 away games. Plus, every few years you're playing ND too.

(12-18-2015 07:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:52 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Since Clemson, Louisville, FSU, and GT already play SEC teams home and away, this could be an issue. 9 conference games mean every other year you're playing 5 away games in the conference. If the SEC OOC game is also on the road, that's 6 away games. Plus, every few years you're playing ND too.

Something everybody forgets, but Clemson didn't.

Supposedly Barker was dispatched with clear instructions to inform the ACC that if the parasites were added that one of two things had to happen:

A. we went back to an eight game schedule

or

B. We got to drop an ACC road game of our choosing in the years the conference had us playing the parasites

because Clemson had endured all of the financial losses it was going to take buying out of games to meet ACC requirements. If neither of those two demands were met we were prepared to submit a very public no vote and would publicly announce that were were evaluating whether the ACC met the needs of our athletic programs.

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:52 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Neutral sites games are a great way to make some dollars. We played SC in Charlotte this year and playing Georgia in Atlanta next year.

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:52 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  What gets me is the FSU fans ripping the ACC as weak in football while at the same time opposing expanding to nine conference games because that would hurt their chances of making the playoffs! If the ACC is so weak, why oppose going to nine conference games?

Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

(12-18-2015 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Neutral sites games are a great way to make some dollars. We played SC in Charlotte this year and playing Georgia in Atlanta next year.

When you have a smaller stadium yes, but we make more from a home game than what Louisville is going to make playing Alabama when we play even a FCS team at home.

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Because that would either take away an OOC game against a quality opponent or cost them (and Clemson) millions of dollars by losing the 7th home game.

A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  A 9th ACC game does not have to cost FSU or Clemson or any other team in the Conference a 7th home game. And regarding quality OOC games, FSU is getting $5 million to play Alabama in Georgia.
So yes, you can play a crap home game or make the same or more money playing a stellar opponent at a neutral site your fans would be excited about. You have the option.

I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I never said it would, just that we had a choice to make.....either give up quality OOC series or give up the 7th home game. Please note the bolded word above.

And when you seat over 80k you aren't playing a neutral site game for a $5 million paycheck, you are paying it for the exposure. We lost money playing Alabama in Atlanta in 2008, but decided it was worth it exposure-wise.

We could make half of that $5 million paycheck playing a nobody at home and selling $35 tickets, probably come out well ahead when you add parking & concessions and don't have to pay all the travel costs. When you don't have as large a stadium as Clemson or FSU then you can come closer to actually making a profit.

Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Clemson has seen the outcome of schedule with a 9 conference game slate. The only reason we ended up being able to continue scheduling an extra P5 team was revisiting it when ND became a partial member.
The following occurred before the ND deal:

Clemson cancels Future Football Games vs. Oklahoma State and Ole Miss
By Kevin Kelley - July 18, 2012
CommentsComments (18)

Clemson TigersAs a result of the new nine-game ACC football schedule, the Clemson Tigers have canceled future football games against Oklahoma State and Ole Miss.

Clemson was slated to host Ole Miss on Oct. 3, 2015 and travel to face the Rebels on Sept. 10, 2016. The Tigers were also tentatively scheduled to play a home-and-home series against Oklahoma State in 2019 and 2020.

“We didn’t want to get out of that series,” Clemson athletics director Terry Don Phillips told OrangeandWhite.com. “It’s a good series. We did save the Georgia series (in 2013-14), and that was extremely important. But given the realities of other universities at our level, we need to play seven home games.”

“A home-and-home situation, we just can’t do it. I hate it. I’d like to keep the series. But reality demands in the long term that we keep seven home games every year, with the Georgia series being the exception.”

With Syracuse now set to join the ACC in 2013 and Pittsburgh likely as well, the ACC will begin a nine-game conference schedule. That means each team will only have four home conference games every other year. In those years, teams such as Clemson will want to have three non-conference home games to bring in revenue.

That means less home-and-home series and more one-game contracts against schools such as South Carolina State and Wofford. It’s not the ideal situation for fans who want to see big-time non-conference games. But most schools want that seventh home game if they can get it.

Clemson will likely have to cancel a non-conference game in 2013 and 2014 as well. The Tigers currently have four games scheduled for each of those seasons. Since Georgia and South Carolina are both safe, either Kent State or The Citadel will be nixed in 2013 and either Central Michigan or Coastal Carolina in 2014.

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Alabama is also playing UofL in Georgia. We are getting $2.5 million. Common opponent is all I'm saying. Bama is giving up a home game and has a larger stadium than Clemson or FSU. Still great $

Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you but facts are facts.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's bottom line.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's SOS more often than not compared to who they play OOC.

Besides, nobody can provide a reason why we need a 9th conference game other than "So teams can play each other more often." We know it isn't going to be a financial windfall because we already did it and didn't make squat.

(12-18-2015 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Alabama can afford to give up revenue for exposure every year because they make more money than the teams they are recruiting against.

If Clemson had a local government stupid enough to give us a sweetheart revenue generator for absolutely nothing like Louisville I imagine we would be more open to it as well, but we don't so we aren't. The Auburn series we start next year came about as a result of the Chick-fil-a folks approaching both teams to play in their 2016 game. It makes more sense and both teams more money to play the games on-campus so that's what we did.

You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you but facts are facts.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's bottom line.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's SOS more often than not compared to who they play OOC.

Besides, nobody can provide a reason why we need a 9th conference game other than "So teams can play each other more often." We know it isn't going to be a financial windfall because we already did it and didn't make squat.

Without an ACCN I agree it makes no $ sense for Clemson or FSU to go to a 9th conference game. It does make $ sense for the Noth Carolina schools with or without a network however. IMO, I would like to play VT, Miami, GT, UNC and Pitt more often so I wouldn't mind it at all.
Whatever is best for everybody else is our view however. We do well no matter.

i think ACC is fine. Miami had some probation issues, i guess loss some scholarships, and VTECH had a coach close to retirement which hurt them recruiting. I think MIami-Vtech-CLemson-Gtech-Lousville-FSU is as solid as any 6 programs in other conferences with good coaches. I believe with good coaches at least 3 of those programs will be top 25 good in a season.

The NC schools will never be that consistent b/c they cannibalize each other and the state gets raided by SC, CLem, TN, and others, but in general there are 2 of them in a season that aren't pushovers.
,
All ACC needs is 3 out of that first 6, 1 out of NC, and 1 out of the northeast to be ranked consistently and the perception of the conference will change. The SEC generally does not have more than 5 that deserve to be ranked.

(12-18-2015 09:36 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  You do know we averaged 20k in basketball attendance before the Yum was built right? When it comes to revenue,,perhaps you should not make such a fuss.

You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you but facts are facts.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's bottom line.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's SOS more often than not compared to who they play OOC.

Besides, nobody can provide a reason why we need a 9th conference game other than "So teams can play each other more often." We know it isn't going to be a financial windfall because we already did it and didn't make squat.

Without an ACCN I agree it makes no $ sense for Clemson or FSU to go to a 9th conference game. It does make $ sense for the Noth Carolina schools with or without a network however. IMO, I would like to play VT, Miami, GT, UNC and Pitt more often so I wouldn't mind it at all.
Whatever is best for everybody else is our view however. We do well no matter.

Dasville,
As Kaplony stats, there are basic financial numbers some schools look at here.

A 9th game would cost FSU and Clemson money. They are already behind the $5 Million the SECN brings to their competitors.....add in the money the 9th game will cost them, than it would take an ACCN that creates significant revenue.

If it does that.....great, but it would have to be assured.

Do you believe we will even see an ACCN? Do you believe it would produce significant revenue?

(12-18-2015 10:59 PM)nole Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:36 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You got any ideas how we can duplicate those numbers you achieve in a city of 760k in a city of 14k?

I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you but facts are facts.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's bottom line.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's SOS more often than not compared to who they play OOC.

Besides, nobody can provide a reason why we need a 9th conference game other than "So teams can play each other more often." We know it isn't going to be a financial windfall because we already did it and didn't make squat.

Without an ACCN I agree it makes no $ sense for Clemson or FSU to go to a 9th conference game. It does make $ sense for the Noth Carolina schools with or without a network however. IMO, I would like to play VT, Miami, GT, UNC and Pitt more often so I wouldn't mind it at all.
Whatever is best for everybody else is our view however. We do well no matter.

Dasville,
As Kaplony stats, there are basic financial numbers some schools look at here.

A 9th game would cost FSU and Clemson money. They are already behind the $5 Million the SECN brings to their competitors.....add in the money the 9th game will cost them, than it would take an ACCN that creates significant revenue.

If it does that.....great, but it would have to be assured.

Do you believe we will even see an ACCN? Do you believe it would produce significant revenue?

This is ridiculous. Somehow people have convinced themselves that ESPN won't pay a penny extra for a 9th conference game or that they can't play a neutral site game if they play a 9th conference game. Of course, ESPN will pay more for additional conference games. They've been offering to do so for years. If the ACC is so weak, what's the problem with ditching a game with the likes of Furman in favor of a neutral site game against a strong P5 team? The Atlantic division is so weak that Wake and Syracuse are little stronger than Furman anyway. If you really want higher conference TV revenues, you should support more conference games in both FB and BB.

(12-18-2015 11:21 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 10:59 PM)nole Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:36 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Clemsons bottom line, but saying another game against a fellow ACC member hurts you doesn't sit well with me either. Just win the whole damn thing this year!

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you but facts are facts.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's bottom line.

A 9th ACC game every year would hurt Clemson's SOS more often than not compared to who they play OOC.

Besides, nobody can provide a reason why we need a 9th conference game other than "So teams can play each other more often." We know it isn't going to be a financial windfall because we already did it and didn't make squat.

Without an ACCN I agree it makes no $ sense for Clemson or FSU to go to a 9th conference game. It does make $ sense for the Noth Carolina schools with or without a network however. IMO, I would like to play VT, Miami, GT, UNC and Pitt more often so I wouldn't mind it at all.
Whatever is best for everybody else is our view however. We do well no matter.

Dasville,
As Kaplony stats, there are basic financial numbers some schools look at here.

A 9th game would cost FSU and Clemson money. They are already behind the $5 Million the SECN brings to their competitors.....add in the money the 9th game will cost them, than it would take an ACCN that creates significant revenue.

If it does that.....great, but it would have to be assured.

Do you believe we will even see an ACCN? Do you believe it would produce significant revenue?

This is ridiculous. Somehow people have convinced themselves that ESPN won't pay a penny extra for a 9th conference game or that they can't play a neutral site game if they play a 9th conference game. Of course, ESPN will pay more for additional conference games. They've been offering to do so for years. If the ACC is so weak, what's the problem with ditching a game with the likes of Furman in favor of a neutral site game against a strong P5 team? The Atlantic division is so weak that Wake and Syracuse are little stronger than Furman anyway. If you really want higher conference TV revenues, you should support more conference games in both FB and BB.

If ESPN is going to pay extra for a 9th conference game then why didn't they announce they were going to do so when we added the 9th game last time? So who is the one who convinced themselves here.....the people who have history on their side or the ones who think ESPN is actually going to do something to benefit the ACC for the first time in, well ever?

Is ESPN going to want to pay more for Clemson/Duke or Clemson/Auburn? Clemson/Texas A&M or Clemson/UVA?

As long as NCAA rules allow a FCS team to count towards bowl eligibility both Clemson and South Carolina is going to play an in-state FCS team each year. This was "suggested" by several SC Legislators a few years back as a way to keep the money from the game in SC rather than sending it to Utah State or Eastern Michigan. It's not a law that is on the books but when you are a state agency and a state legislator says you need to do something you do it. With this and the South Carolina game and the ACC obligation to the parasites that means we would only have one OOC game to play with.

As for the neutral site game you need to reed the posts above yours because they might make some programs money but for others they are a money losing proposition. There's a huge difference in gameday revenue between a program that struggles to sell out a 33k or 63k stadium and one that routinely sells out an 81k stadium.

Not to mention that with a nine game ACC schedule and the annual South Carolina game we would have five road games scheduled every year. Twelve games - five road games = seven games. Explain to me where exactly we are going to find a high profile opponent every year who is willing to come play us here to maintain the revenue from the 7th home game.

And once again I would like an answer to the question as to why it is so important for us to play a 9th game.