5 chatters in TigerActive Chat   Go!  
Front Page » TigerNet Forums » Archives » Tiger Board Archive

Topic: New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin
Replies: 69   Last Post: May 12, 2014 10:12 PM by: OrangeFan95
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.



[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 69   Pages: 1  

New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin


Posted: May 12, 2014 9:59 AM
 

 
Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin

The annual ACC meetings begin this week at Amelia Island, and Clemson Athletic Director Dan Radakovich hopes the league takes a vote and finds resolution on whether the league will have an eight or nine game conference schedule. What does he say about the vote? What does he say about a potential ACC-SEC series? Rich Barnes-USAT Full Story »



Re: New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 10:05 AM
 

So the ACC is again talking about moving to the nine-game schedule that was previously nixed... One of the more professionally run SB Nation sites, Blogger So Dear (Wake Forest), has a beautifully written article on why the ACC should move to nine games. The only problem is it’s completely wrong.

Their key point is that Wake Forest will go six years without playing North Carolina. There are countless other examples of long gaps between playing conference opponents and it’s because of this that the article calls the ACC a “conglomerate conference,” and suggests that playing nine games would make it a “true conference.”

While the frustration with not seeing UNC or Miami on a semi-regular basis is understandable, it’s not worth handing over essentially the entire football schedule to the powers that be in Greensboro. It may also be solved more effectively by eliminating divisions as the conference has already officially supported.

Consider this. Major college football programs play seven-home games per year. Clemson already has South Carolina on the schedule annually. Additionally, they host an in-state FCS program, which has important benefits for the state. That leaves just two non-conference games. Every third year one of those games will be Notre Dame. That slot in recent years has been given to Georgia, Auburn, TCU, or Alabama and is played on the road in years which Clemson hosts South Carolina and at home when they travel to Columbia. The final slot is their “seventh home game” and generally features a team like Georgia State or Central Michigan.

Those who support the move to nine-games falsely claim that it’ll create more relevant games by replacing those Georgia State type games with teams like Virginia Tech, but that’s simply not the case. Even in the most simplistic situation, setting the Notre Dame complication aside momentarily, you have the following:

5 ACC road games
4 ACC home games
South Carolina
2 Remaining home games

To reach your total of seven home games, you’ll need to schedule the two remaining games at home to reach seven. The option for a home-and-home is not available because the following season, Clemson will replace the fifth ACC road game with a trip to SC-Columbia and will still need to fill those slots with home games.

The programs that generate the bulk of the TV revenue for the ACC–Clemson and FSU–will travel to Athens and Dallas to face major BCS conference teams to open 2014. Those are the games that captivate fans, not Clemson v. Duke and certainly not Wake Forest v. North Carolina. There is a reason the two most important programs in the conference strongly oppose the move to nine games. We finally broke the Tobacco Road grip and got the ACC basketball tournament to rotate to great venues such as the Barclays Center and Time Warner Cable Arena. Let’s not fall back in step and eliminate some of the most intriguing non-conference games just to make sure we can play Duke and Pittsburgh more regularly.


Re: New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:23 AM
 

Your post was well thought out except there was no consideration for the ACC network and adding 7 conference football games will be more money for the conference as a whole.
I personally would rather us play Miami and VaT every 2nd or 3rd year that have another home game.
I think the nine game conference schedule will pass now because of the ACC Netwrok and the fact that a home game in most ACC schools with FSU, Clemson or VaT means a sellout. and the other teams want us to play them in their stadium. I understand Wake wanting UNC on their schedule as often as possible for the same reason.


"Those are the games that captivate fans" is so right why


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:09 AM
 

can't Bozo and the other basketball clowns see this?

We need games like UGA where our fan base is energized and loving Clemson football. (Another Duke or NC State or Pitt--snooze-fest where no one comes is sickening).


Message was edited by: AThomas®



Simple Solution

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 10:13 AM
 

The ACC should adopt a similar rule to the SEC... you have to play a 9th game against a major conference opponent. The caveat could be that you could pick an opponent from the other division that is not on your schedule for that year and play them as a NON-CONFERENCE game. In other words, UNC could schedule a home and home against Wake outside of the ACC schedule that would not count as an ACC game (similar to the way that the ND games won't count). That way the schools that want a 9th ACC game can have it, but others could choose a game against SEC, Big 12, Big1G, etc.


They promised to stay at 8 to get the schools to accept


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:17 AM
 

the Notre Dame deal and now they want to bring it up again. What a bunch of crap.


Re: They promised to stay at 8 to get the schools to accept


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:26 AM
 

Just ask UNC, whatever they want is what the ACC will end up doing.


UNC didn't support initial expansion.***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:32 PM
 




Re: They promised to stay at 8 to get the schools to accept

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 10:26 AM
 

Playing GaState last year was a bunch of crap! I would much rather have seen a game against Pitt or Miami or even Duke!

With the way Clemson is currently recruiting we need to stop playing SCSt and Furman and Woffords, Play as tough an OOC schedule as we can and try to get in the 4 game playoff...


It's not that simple.....


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:32 AM
 

For financial reasons, Clemson is adamant about playing seven home games annually. When scheduling OOC games, the premier OOC opponents are going to want, at least, a home and away. In some cases, certain teams has insisted on a two-for-one arrangement; something Clemson would not agree to do.

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Re: It's not that simple.....true but our whining about this


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:51 AM
 

rings pretty hollow when we seat about twice as many as some conf schools. they dont care about this.

you play 8 because why would any idiot set up an odd number of conf games ? its idiocy typical of the ACC


Re: It's not that simple.....true but our whining about this


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:08 PM
 

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

All of the teams in a division would have the same number of home/road games, so there wouldn't be an advantage over division rivals (outside of strength of schedule).


There are teams that have insisted on a 2 for 1 w/ Clemson?!


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:57 AM
 

I don't see ANY team/situation that would warrent us taking two road trips.


Yes...which is why we haven't done it.


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:03 AM
 

Penn State is one of those teams.

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Bahahaha...That will NEVER happen***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:39 PM
 




Yea...that's pretty much what we've told them...


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:45 PM
 

which explains why we've never played them during the regular season. I believe Michigan also insisted on a two-for-one.

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Really? Look at who some of the others are playing...


Posted: May 12, 2014 4:12 PM
 

FSU - Citadel, (the rest of the OOC schedule is respectable - OK St, Notre Dame, Florida)

Bama - Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, Western Carolina. Their powerhouse OOC is WestByGodVirginia

Oklahoma - La Tech, Tulsa

Auburn - San Jose St., La Tech, Samford

Oregon - South Dakota, Wyoming

Michigan St. - Jacksonville St., Eastern Michigan, Wyoming

Ohio St. - Navy, Kent St., Cincinnati

Georgia - Troy, Charleston Southern

Baylor - Northwestern St., Buffalo, SMU

USuC - ECU, Furman, South Alabama

So don't give me that crap about not playing 2 cupcakes. Some of these teams play three. And keep in mind that Ga St. was shoehorned into the schedule when Swoffie canceled the 9th conference game. We can get into the playoffs just by taking care of business against Ga, FSU, and USuC and running the table on the rest of the conference. The schedule is tough enough as it is.

Oh, and the teams above are ESPN's way too early top 10 for 2014.


Re: They promised to stay at 8 to get the schools to accept


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:36 AM
 

yeah pretty much my view also. why keep voting it down only to bring it up again. This junk gets old


Do away with divisions


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:30 AM
 

Two best teams go to ACC Championship game. Keep one permanent rival (FSU for us) and rotate through every other team.


Re: Simple Solution


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:58 AM
 

sulfuric acid??


Radakovich needs to worry about the sorry state of


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:25 AM
 

the baseball program.


Heaven forbid we use some common sense:


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:28 AM
 

1) Rearrange the divisions by geography (then we could play UNC every year instead of Syracuse)

2) If the ACC-CG is really necessary let the best two teams play. (I personally think the playoff should be 8 teams [the power 5 conf. champs and 3 at large] and do away with the conf. champ games)

3) Stay at 8 teams so we could play an SEC team on non ND years. Raise your hand if you'd rather play UGA than Pitt.

4) All of the above would also help get ND in the league.


Re: Heaven forbid we use some common sense:


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:10 PM
 

Raise your hand if you'd rather play Georgia State than Pitt.


I would rather play a big-time non-conference game in the


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:12 PM
 

southeast. So, yeah no Pitt. But no Ga State either.

UGA, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas--all sound good.


Re: I would rather play a big-time non-conference game in the


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:29 PM
 

If that is how we were going to schedule, we'd already do it.

We currently have three openings on the schedule each year. How often do we schedule more than one quality opponent for one of those three openings?


1. USuC every year. 2. Small Potatoes U 3. Big non-con game


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:35 PM
 

That is the way it has been the last several years and would work for me.


Re: 1. USuC every year. 2. Small Potatoes U 3. Big non-con game


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:41 PM
 

No - between the 8-game conference schedule and USC, that is our nine set games.

Right now we tend to (with the three openings) play one power conference opponent and two bad teams. We don't need two bad teams on the schedule every year. One is enough.

And if we aren't going to drop one of the bad teams for a quality opponent, I am happy for the conference requiring a ninth conference game.


What does a 9th ACC game do for Clemson?


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:44 PM
 

NOTHING. Get it in your head it is worthless. A ticket no one wants. UGA, Auburn, TX A&M --yes. 9th ACC or Ga State -- no. Simple-if you can understand what Tiger fans want--more UGA and less Ga State.


Depends on who we play, year by year


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:39 PM
 

Right now, between the division and our "set" opponent (Georgia Tech), we have seven set games. The other six teams in the Coastal are Duke, Miami, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Pitt, and Virginia.

Tell me who you would rather see us play - any of those teams or a mid-major, because that is the choice. I would like to play our traditional ACC rivals (UNC, Duke, Virginia) more often. I surely would like to play Virginia Tech and Miami more often. Pitt might not be a glamour program right now, but they'll come back.

I think that getting rid of divisions or realignment would be something of a permanent solution to a temporary problem. And that temporary problem is not one that we can solve. Just as we have gotten our program back in order, the other schools in the conference need to get their programs in order. Especially Miami and Va Tech.

I do want to add that one suggestion that I read in this thread that was great was the suggestion that UNC & Wake play a "non-conference" game.

These are all the perils of conference expansion.


Our scheduling philosophy for the 4 non-conf games is


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:35 PM
 

(1) SCAR
(2) Citadel/Furman/SC State, etc
(3) Mid major (Troy, Central Michigan)
(4) Team from BCS Conference (Auburn, UGa)

Dishonorably discharged from the Ring of Honor


Re: Our scheduling philosophy for the 4 non-conf games is


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:43 PM
 

And the mid-major game is idiotic. It serves less of a purpose than the small in-state school game.

What single fan looks forward to a MAC opponent or a Sun Belt opponent coming to town?


Can't disagree with that but at least they are FBS teams***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:47 PM
 



Dishonorably discharged from the Ring of Honor


I think most of you forgot the reason

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 12:50 PM
 

We are playing GA STATE in the first place is the schedule was already done an the ACC decided to go to 9 games then changed back again. We had to scramble to fill dates


Re: I think most of you forgot the reason


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:53 PM
 

That is an absolutely fair point - but give the last-minute schedule shifting that happens, it is interesting that we always happen to play two cupcakes.

A ninth conference game is a ninth (and guaranteed ten total) game against a power conference opponent.

The cupcakes are going to hurt us when SOS factors into playoff decisions.


Common sense..by the ACC !?!?!?!


Posted: May 12, 2014 3:23 PM
 

This is the same conference that;

1 - Moved an incredibly profitable and successful ACC Baseball Tournament from Greenville, SC because playing in Greenville was an unfair advantage for Clemson, only to relocate it to Durham and Greensboro which is even closer to schools like Duke, UNC and NC State than Clemson is to Greenville.

2 - Gave away millions of dollars in third-tier television rights to a network (Raycom) owned by a very close friend of the ACC Commissioner which also happens to employ the son of said Commissioner.

3 - Recommended the addition of a school to the league under the guise of securing a northeastern television market that is dominated by professional sports and doesn't gives a rats rump about collegiate athletics.

4 - Declined to admit West Virginia to the league on the basis of poor academics only to later admit Louisville, a school with even lower academic rankings than West Virginia.

The list just goes on and on




Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Deer ACC Athletic Deerrectors

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 10:57 AM
 

(1) Stay at 8 conference games per year
(2) You can keep divisions as they are, but do away with requirement that teams play everyone in their division every year. That way, teams don't have to wait 12 years between playing at a given venue.
(3) Keep ACCCG in Charlotte.

Thank ewe for your kind consideration of these issues.

Dishonorably discharged from the Ring of Honor


Ewe got a fax number handy I can send this post to?***

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 11:01 AM
 

nm


Message was edited by: CTiger423®



They need to change the ACC Championship ....

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 10:59 AM
 

Two BEST teams in the CONFERENCE play, NOT the winner of each DIVISION


Re: They need to change the ACC Championship ....

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 11:00 AM
 

then drop the divisions


Re: They need to change the ACC Championship ....


Posted: May 12, 2014 10:12 PM
 

Dropping the divisions and having the two best teams play in a CG would require NCAA approval. Seems like Ive heard somewhere that the ACC has petitioned for that changed but it hasnt been approved yet. Im all for it and if its approved I would like to see the conference adopt the 3-5 schedule format Ive heard thrown around. Each team would have a group of 3 teams they play every year and then rotate year to year among two separate groups of 5. Our 3 every year teams would be FSU, GT & NC St. Miami, Louis, BC, Duke & UVA would be in one group of 5 and VT, UNC, Pitt, Syracuse & Wake in the other.


Kind of torn on this one...

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 11:05 AM
 

most years, the best team in the ACC is going to be Clemson or FSU. Having both play in the regular season AND in the ACCCG means two automatic losses (combined) which would hurt both of us in the playoff and bowl picture.

Dishonorably discharged from the Ring of Honor


How do you measure when we are climbing on the SEC?


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:43 AM
 

Eight games will help when we swing in as a better football conference than the SEC. We will forever be viewing the SEC as fans as a better football conference even when they are down. With FSU, Clemson, Miami, Boston College, GT, UNC, NCS, VT and Louisville all could challenge the SEC as the ACC picks up in revenue. Clemson and FSU are bringing the conference up. NFL ACC players drafted helps too.

My opinion is if we go to 9 games we fall right into what the SEC wants.
We can force Notre Dame to become a full time member. The ACC has the ability to be the best in Football, Basketball and Baseball at eight games we open the door to force the SEC to play us as the tables turn.


Would 5-0 N. Dame go to the ACC-CG ahead of a 7-1 CU?***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:24 PM
 




I hate all conferences. They keep good games from


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:11 AM
 

happening and they push a lot of sorry games on people.

Lets schedule UGA, LSU, Auburn, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Southern Cal, Oregon, etc. etc. etc.

But NO we have be in a #### conference that wants 9 games that would keep us from big-daddy, huge, must see showdown games each year. AGHHHHH. . .


Re: I hate all conferences. They keep good games from


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:28 PM
 

The goal is to make it to the playoff and the only way to get there right now is to win all of your games or win your conference title. That being said, I think we have seen the end of the big time out of conference game (UGA, AUB, etc.) Losing that game puts you out of the playoff in all likelihood. So the conference either needs to stay at 8 game or go to 10, that way a home game is not lost every other year and we would see all of the ACC teams more regularly that every 12 years.


So when we don't get picked because we don't have the SOS


Posted: May 12, 2014 2:28 PM
 

of another undefeated or 1 loss team we can blame it on . . .?

I heard in some interviews that SOS is a big part of the selections. So . . .???


Message was edited by: AThomas®



Somebody at the home office is adamant about playing 9 games


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:14 AM
 

otherwise, why else would the leage keep bringing-up this issue after it has already been disapproved and voted-down.




Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Swoffie probably wants to be able to manipulate the schedule


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:18 AM
 

for NC the way Slive has been doing it for Bama recently...


Re: Swoffie probably wants to be able to manipulate the schedule


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:27 AM
 

I always like the way Bama and Ga never play. Yet Ga and Auburn play every year (they're our rival). Well Bama is in the neighboring state. How come you never find a way to play them?


All this is is that some of those "basketball"


Posted: May 12, 2014 11:20 AM
 

schools don't want to put any money into football and so they know they will get killed against outside competition. Instead of using it to get better they would rather play their own sorry ACC competition plus some other lightweights to make themselves feel good about themselves. Oh, Wake Forest went 9-3 this year in the league. Syracuse won 8. Oh, boy they where really beating those ACC teams.

But at Clemson we have different dreams and want more. We want national games and big-time championships that isn't a concern to many of these ACC teams. I would call the ACC on this. This is the freaking reason we gave up our media rights to the conference. They need to honor our sacrifice of keeping this #### thing together.


Re: Somebody at the home office is adamant about playing 9 games


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:32 PM
 

It was approved but then reversed when the conference made the Notre Dame deal.


All teams in the ACC will play each other AT LEAST every


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:10 PM
 

All teams in the ACC will play each other AT LEAST every other year if the divisions could be changed.




Each team will play round robin in their division, then two of the teams shown in (parenthesis) on a yearly rotation.




Atlantic odd years - 2015, 2017, 2019 etc.
VA Tech (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
UVA (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
Syracuse (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
Boston (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
Clemson (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)
GT (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)
Miami (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)


Coastal odd years - 2015, 2017, 2019 etc.
UNC (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
NCST (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
Duke (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
Wake (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
FSU (Clemson, GT, Miami)
L-Ville (Clemson, GT, Miami)
Pitt (Clemson, GT, Miami)





Atlantic even years - 2016, 2018, 2020 etc.
VA Tech (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
UVA (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
Syracuse (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
Boston (UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake)
FSU (Clemson, GT, Miami)
L-Ville (Clemson, GT, Miami)
Pitt (Clemson, GT, Miami)


Coastal even years - 2016, 2018, 2020 etc.
UNC (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
NCST (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
Duke (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
Wake (VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston)
Clemson (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)
GT (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)
Miami (FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt)



Clemson will play Georgia Tech and Miami every year.
Clemson will play FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt twice every three years.


3 "pools" of teams.


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:13 PM
 

3 "pools" of teams.

A: UNC, NCST, Duke, and Wake
B: VA Tech, UVA, Syracuse, Boston
C1: Clemson, GT, Miami
C2: FSU, L-Ville, and Pitt

You play everyone in your "pool" every year.

Pools C1 and C2 play each other twice every three years.


Re: New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:13 PM
 

Force Notre Dame TO BE FULL TIME MEMBER in all sports, or go somewhere else and mess up that conferences schedule. Geographically align the divisions and stick to what was decided on home games in the past. I agree, ditch the Citadels, Woffords, Coastals and SC States. Play more conference or SEC/Big 10. That would help Clemson in the playoff format.


Re: New Story: Radakovich says scheduling decision looms as ACC meetings begin


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:27 PM
 

It is interesting that we were able to have a profitable athletic program when we had 6 game home schedules in the days of the 11 game schedule.

Unfortunately, the expansion from 11 to 12 turned into a money grab for schools rather than an opportunity to upgrade the schedule.

We traditionally play two crap opponents at home. And while I do not have a problem with just one (and I think it is good when it is an in-state I-AA program) there is no need for uninteresting non-con games against Sun Belt, CUSA, or MAC teams - there is nothing wrong with the MAC, but the Big Ten schools can schedule them.

The conference should go to nine games. If they require one power conference non-con game, we won't change our schedule at all. We won't add Georgia every year. We'll play Georgia State (or another team of that caliber).

We should stick with two divisions, so you are competing with programs that have comparable schedules (and the ninth game will help balance schedules). As I said in another post, obviously all of the teams in a single division will play the same number of home games.

While I think a geographical conference balance makes sense, what is the seventh team in the "North?" I think it is a mistake to have an ACC division and a Big East division. Current divisions are a little arbitrary, but there is a method to the madness.


How do you get a "one power conference non-con game"


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:32 PM
 

with Georgia State? They are not in a power conference and never will be. We should stick to playing UGA as much as we can--they are a traditional rival and at times have even been more a rival than USuC.


South Carolina


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:37 PM
 

We-have the home-and-home with Georgia. Before that the three years with Auburn. Was the A&M home-and-home before that? But we rarely play another good program - unless we accidentally schedule a Marshall team that ends up being good.

If the conference requires one non-con power conference game, we already play S.C.


Pencil UGA for me every year and the heck with mid-U State***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:39 PM
 




Re: Pencil UGA for me every year and the heck with mid-U State***


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:44 PM
 

If we could do that we'd already be doing that!


We have been playing a major conference player since

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 12:45 PM
 

the Auburn games began. Keep doing it and move on it again.


Schedule a permanent home and home with UGA.

[1]
Posted: May 12, 2014 1:18 PM
 

First game of the season, every year.

UGA
FBS Cupcake
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
FBS cupcake
SCAR

Replace Notre Dame w/ 1 cupcake every 4 years. Alternate UGA and SCAR home and away each year. 7 home games 4ACC+2cupcakes+either UGA or SCAR. Every 8 years we give up a home game to play Notre Dame.

Split the divisions into rational geographic divisions so we play southern teams every year. Stagger home and home with alternate division, nix permanent cross division crap and everything is perfect.




We don't need two cupcakes every year.


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:44 PM
 

The rival games are what make these odd divisions work. Keeping us playing Tech, FSU playing Miami, etc.

I said it somewhere else on here, but who is the seventh team in the North?

Don't people think that if Clemson and Georgia wanted to play every year they would already be playing every year?

When D1 schedules expanded from 11 to 12 games we could have "permanently" added the Clemson-Georgia game to the schedule, but we didn't. We added a "permanent" seventh home game against an additional cupcake, instead.


Wake goes north until we add Notre Dame and another yankee.


Posted: May 12, 2014 3:25 PM
 

And I'm not saying what will happen, I'm saying what should happen.


Just eliminate the cross over opponent


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:21 PM
 

Would it kill us not to play GT every year? In fact, they seem to be the one team we sometimes slip up against when we should beat them every year. Eliminate them and now you have two cross over games and you get around to everyone a lot quicker.

Besides us, the only "real" rival it hurts is FSU/Miami. BC/VT? I don't think VT cares (and who cares what BC thinks);

Wake/Duke... Wake still has NCSU; more important Duke still has UNC.

UNC/NCSU... maybe a few folks wouldn't like, but again, UNC has Duke still... NCSU not gets to rotate Duke back on, and heck, the way things are going, Duke may end up helping NCSU's schedule more than UNC.

UVa... heck... who do they even have? Louisville? As long as they have VT they don't care.

Would FSU leaving Miami each year for a shot at VT more often be that bad? And heck, if things worked out like "everyone thought they would when they added Miami," FSU and Miami would face each other in the championship (except when Miami had to face us!)


If we split the divisions up by north and south we could


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:24 PM
 

play all the teams that we want to... every single year. Cut travel expenses, and eliminate need to have permanent cross division opponents.

South
Clemson
FSU
Miami
UNC
GT
NC State
Duke

North
Louisville
VT
UVA
Wake
Syracuse
BC
Pitt

Play two new teams from each division every year and stagger home and home.


So, basically, screw Wake Forest?


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:50 PM
 

Everyone remember we have to balance interests here.


Yes, in the interest of the conference, screw Wake Forest.


Posted: May 12, 2014 3:24 PM
 

They have the smallest fan support. Why let them stand in the way of something MUCH better for 98% of the conference's fans?


Re: So, basically, screw Wake Forest?


Posted: May 12, 2014 3:37 PM
 

I'd say send UNC to the North Div., and keep Wake in the South.


I don't like the way UNC does business.


Posted: May 12, 2014 3:53 PM
 

The Southern Div. should have its' own representation.


Re: Just eliminate the cross over opponent


Posted: May 12, 2014 1:48 PM
 

"Would it kill us not to play GT every year? In fact, they seem to be the one team we sometimes slip up against when we should beat them every year."

So a conference schedule should designed to make things easier for Clemson? It is the closest conference rival we have. There are reasons for the Clemson-FSU rivalry are a comparatively recent phenomena.

BC fans care.

UNC and NCSU are certainly rivals who want to continue that game.


Replies: 69   Pages: 1  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: 2017 Season Tickets
FOR SALE: I'm selling my 1 2017 Season Ticket in the Lower Deck, West End-zone. Asking $1200 or best reasonabl...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
3826 people have read this post