|
Replies: 45
| visibility 1
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
Why am I not sold on Clemson joining the Big 12?
May 26, 2012, 6:32 PM
|
|
I have read many of the posts about us joining the B12, but I'm just not excited about it. Yes, I would like for Clemson to be a strong university in academics and athletics. I'm just not seeing how joining the B12 helps.
Are some fans jealous of the SEC and tired of the comments from coots? I sure am. But is the answer for Clemson to join the B12? I'm not so sure.
I like the ACC rivalries. I don't care much about Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State or Baylor. I am not sure I know anyone who went to those schools.
If the issue is football, maybe the answer is for Clemson to keep winning. And for FSU, VA Tech, Miami and GT (and some other schools) to get stronger/better.
Clemson surely needs to get better in baseball. But does joining the B12 help with that? The ACC is one of the best baseball conferences in the nation from top to bottom. I don't think the B12 is any better.
I think I am swimming against the current. Don't hate me for that. If anything, please try to convince me. Please.
|
|
|
|
 |
Virtuoso [636]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 254
Joined: 3/29/12
|
Just one of many reasons... but I don't like the fact
May 26, 2012, 6:41 PM
|
|
that the coots could make around $120mil more than Clemson in football for the next 15-20 years. It's part of the reason as to why they have started to get better over the last few years. More $ means more resources, better coaching, better facilities, better recruits, better RESULTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
When people here in December said that they'd rather win the
May 26, 2012, 10:35 PM
|
|
ACC than beat the coots, was that BS? If we stay in the ACC, we can win more conference championships than in the tougher Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [649]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1031
Joined: 9/30/08
|
That was true for last year....
May 27, 2012, 12:02 AM
|
|
the question wasn't posed as a lifetime answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Just what I thought. It was BS.***
May 27, 2012, 8:46 AM
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43567
Joined: 11/17/03
|
No it wasn't. The ones that said it probably meant it.***
May 27, 2012, 8:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
I guess they were a vocal minority then because they are
May 27, 2012, 8:52 AM
|
|
very quiet now while we may be close to jumping to a tougher conference to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
I'm in agreement on all points, however I think the big
May 26, 2012, 6:48 PM
|
|
factor that will sawy the needle the other direction is money.
If the studies clearly show, which evidently they do, that the athletic department will have a much larger revenue stream then we are going.
I think the modern day "Arms Race" of college athletics, as well as it becoming more of a national sport rather than regional, dictates all of this. National TV deals, etc.
For the fan it will not be as convenient, but in big business (and that is now what college athletics is) dollars will drive and our wants will take a back seat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19202]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16712
Joined: 9/2/08
|
It is amazing how excited some would be and how down in the
May 26, 2012, 6:48 PM
|
|
dirt others will be. ACC is not going to get a seat at the big-boy table. That is what should resonate in your mind. That--and the fact your rival will run circles around you in money, exposure, and recruiting. Clemson should have the best of any opportunity that presents itself--ACC is not the way to that opportunity.
Message was edited by: AThomas®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [636]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 254
Joined: 3/29/12
|
not getting a seat at the table is the biggest concern
May 26, 2012, 6:56 PM
|
|
besides money, IMO. You said it right. Will it be harder to win consistently in Big12? Probably.. but when we DO have a good year, we won't be left out. It's time for Clemson to realize that football is king and buckle up and play big boy football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
I'll explain, but not convince....
May 26, 2012, 6:53 PM
|
|
As long as the ACC afforded the football powers an opportunity to reach the highest level (whether or not they actually did anything when there is another issue) and circumstance allowed them to strive for that goal, the ACC remained a fine home.
Alas, long-standing rivalry pales when people are throwing buckets of cash at football teams. And the ACC could not draw the money needed for its football powers to long remain in the hunt for elite status. Then, when it became clear that the ACC overlords were not going to do anything to help, those teams needed to make a choice: leave and stay relevant or remain and join the rest of the schools (not powers) in a slow comfortable slide into football hypothermia.
Clemson wishes to remain relevant ... or at least have the opportunity to do so. It cannot happen, should we remain in the ACC.
Think of it as having family that you love, despite you squabbles. Then, one day you realize that, like Al Jolson, you want to be a big-time performer, not just a singer in the church choir. Your family does everything it can to keep your dream from happening.
Which way do you go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [940]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1067
Joined: 8/10/01
|
Re: I'll explain, but not convince....
May 26, 2012, 7:32 PM
|
|
Exactly. We are motivated by fear of being left out.
What a terrible reason to make a decision. But that is indeed the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3220]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1047
Joined: 1/12/12
|
Re: I'll explain, but not convince....
May 26, 2012, 8:21 PM
|
|
We are motivated by the desire of inclusion. We seek to excel . . . to move towards the ultimate goal of the sport. If we flounder in the status quo, then we will be denied the goal.
There is no fear here (Tigers fear nothing). It is all positive motivation for those who seek to "be the best" and "win it all"!
GO, TIGERS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
Hmm: Don't believe I mentioned "fear" anywhere...
May 26, 2012, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'll explain, but not convince.... ] |
|
I did mention the desire to remain relevant and that the ACC would not be able to provide that opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3220]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1047
Joined: 1/12/12
|
My response was to the immediately preceeding author . . .
May 26, 2012, 9:39 PM
|
|
. . ., i.e., GvlTgr, and not to you, Rev.
No offense intended to him or you. I TU'd your post.
Go, Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
None take ... and a TU back atcha!***
May 26, 2012, 10:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [940]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1067
Joined: 8/10/01
|
Spin it however you like.....
May 27, 2012, 8:31 AM
|
|
This move is motivated by fear.
I'm not saying the fear isn't reasonable, but let's call it what it is.
The other fear is what USC has done to us the last three years. The idea that USC could physically dominate a Clemson team that won its conference has caused us all to panic.
Outside of some deus ex machina solution to this problem, the Big 12 move is probably the lesser evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: Spin it however you like.....
May 27, 2012, 9:54 AM
|
|
Question, would you rather us be East Carolina and win ConfUsa champs or go to the big12 and try are hardest?
In the ACC that's pretty much where we're all headed. (ECU status)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [940]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1067
Joined: 8/10/01
|
Re: Spin it however you like.....
May 27, 2012, 10:22 AM
|
|
That's my point. We're afraid of being East Carolina.
I have zero desire to go to the Big 12. None. Zip. Zilcho. I hate Texas and everything they stand for. I'd like to give that whole state back to Mexico.
But if were our AD, I'd move us to the Big 12, too, because of the fear of getting left out.
That's why we need some government intervention to bring some sanity to this thing. Making a decision to get into a league with Texas because we're afraid of what is going to happen to a conference that has been around since 1954 and we're the all-time leader in conference championships is awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 931
Joined: 2/6/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2361]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8247
Joined: 11/15/00
|
I remember when TV ruined NASCAR. Now, it's ruining college
May 26, 2012, 6:57 PM
|
|
football in the South.
I, too, am not enthused about the Big 12 (even if we went with 4 southeastern/former ACC teams), but we surely need the cash to keep up with the SEC teams which surround us. This type of revenue disparity is truly uncharted water.
Maybe if we went with 6 former ACC teams I could be more excited...but between the relatively poor academics and distance (they're all in the central time zone other than WVU!), it doesn't sound good to me. I think we're in the situation where the grass is pretty brown everywhere you look (unless we can work our way into position for an SEC invite), but that the ground may be falling from beneath our feet where we presently stand.
Still, it seems to me that Clemson and GT might have some appeal to the SEC, in spite of the Bryant-Dodd feud. Would the SEC really want Texas and Oklahoma playing in and around the Atlanta market regularly? I wonder what the value of a defensive expansion, on the part of the SEC, would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
What you say makes sense - dollars and cents.
May 26, 2012, 7:08 PM
|
|
I really hate wanting what USuC has, but joining the SEC might be the best thing for Clemson. AND that really pains me to think or type that.
But I am wondering why the ACC cannot get the same money as the SEC if (and I know this is a big IF) Clemson, FSU, Miami and VA Tech win a few more football games each year. Surely these schools have the talent to do that, and the reputations to draw TV audiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [636]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 254
Joined: 3/29/12
|
but they don't draw the audience.. that's the thing.
May 26, 2012, 7:14 PM
|
|
it's not coincidence that the SEC pulls more TV money than the ACC. They win more when it matters, but they also draw TONS of viewers. No one cares to watch Va Tech vs NC State. But people will tune in for Georgia vs Ole Miss. It's not an opinion.. it's just what it is.
And it's not about having what USuC has.. it's being on the same playing field. Clemson won't join the SEC. The SEC has no need for Clemson or Florida St.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2361]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8247
Joined: 11/15/00
|
I realize that is commonly repeated on here, but I'm not
May 26, 2022, 10:23 PM
|
|
certain it's true: http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc
What would be the value of keeping the Big 12 OUT of the Deep South? I believe that if the SEC is concerned in the least about the Big 12 being a threat and stealing some of their "brand," the surest way to stop the threat would be to take out the MIDDLE of a potential Big 12-Southeast. That would be us and GT. It would provide UGA the Georgia-centric division they want and free up schedules for all four schools in the two states. What's the value of that?
Don't forget that the value he presents is driven down by the fact that no one watches the other teams on our schedule...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
Why do we think B12 TV contract would yield more $ for us?
May 26, 2012, 7:51 PM
|
|
This is pure speculation. They have not signed a recent contract. Guess we can always hope they can leverage more money from TV than the ACC did. But how much more? What is our price?
Would a Clemson - Iowa State game draw more viewers than a Clemson - Duke or Wake game? I am not sure.
And then there is the branding. Big 12? Sounds too much like Big 10 or Pac 12. Would there always be 12 teams in the Big 12? Maybe the Big 12 would get a new name. But that would cost money - changing all of their signage. But I'm thinking a conference name change would be in order. Maybe we can start a "Name the new conference" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [636]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 254
Joined: 3/29/12
|
You think it's speculation that BigXII would yield more
May 26, 2012, 7:56 PM
|
|
money for us? You've lost me brother. You are blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
How much?
May 26, 2012, 8:06 PM
|
|
It might be more than the ACC contract. I suspect it would be less than the SEC contact. But what do I know? What do anyone of us really know?
Are we selling out? What's our price?
This reminds me of a classic joke: dude asks a lady if she will make love to him for 5 million dollars. She says "Sure." He then asks if she would do it for 50 dollars. She says "What do you think I am, a #####?" He say "We already established that, now we are simply negotiating a price."
What's our price? And will we know how much we will get before we join the B12, if the B12 has not renegotiated their TV contracts by then. But maybe they will and we will know. I will be curious to know how much it takes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
this is courtesy of the Kansas fan...
May 26, 2012, 10:44 PM
|
|
I got tired of breaking it down, so I copied this. This is a conservative estimate I think, but the numbers are what could be expected. Remember, in our current ACC TV contract we are stuck making $12M until 2021, when it kicks up to $17M.
Concerning the money, there is nothing solid yet.
What we do know is that the Big 12's contract as of now, without FSU and Clemson (no CCG) is going to average 20 million a year and be fully vested in 2015 (I have heard rumors reported that the contract is closer to 21 million per team but there is no verification of this)
The ACC is going to average 17 million a year and won't reach 17 million a year until 2021 according to reports but no one really knows because the ACC won't make the contract public, not even to member institutions.
What we can surmise.
1) Adding FSU and Clemson will surely add some money to the pot. Conservatively, let's say it only adds 1 million. Pitt and Syracuse additions to the ACC added 1 million. We will go with that even though FSU and Clemson bring more to the table that Pitt and Syracuse (I think they will bring 3-4 million extra in personally).
2) The Conference Championship game will be worth an addition 2 million per team (conservatively - possibly 3).
3) No one is going to make what Texas makes on Tier 3. But that does not mean Tier 3 cannot be profitable. If Clemson can just match what KState brings in they will be bringing in an addition 4.5 million. It will probably be closer to what Kansas is bringing in which is averaging around 7 million a year. But let's go conservative and say 4 million.
So If Clemson and FSU join for the 2013 year, they will be making 21 million from the Contract + 2 Million for the CCG + 4 million for their Tier 3 rights. That's 27 million dollars on the conservative side by 2015.
In 2015, if Clemson stays in the ACC, they will be making 13 million dollars + whatever revenue is generated by the conference championship game. If you assume the ACC CCG is worth as much as the Big 12 CCG (unlikely, but I will give the benefit of the doubt) then they can pull in 15 million.
Compared to 27 million.
Math is a pretty strong suit of mine so Im going to say they aren't going to have 12 million dollars (or anywhere close to it) of travel costs every year. There has been talk from Neinas and Bowlsby about a reimbursement plan to conference members for travel expenses based on total miles traveled for each team (this was concerning West Virginia and their travel concerns).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: this is courtesy of the Kansas fan...
May 26, 2012, 10:51 PM
|
|
76Jayhawk provided that info. This doesn't even include the new bowl game between the Big XII champion and the SEC champion, and both conferences own 100% of the monetary rights to the game to be split 50/50 between each conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
How much do SEC teams get?***
May 27, 2012, 3:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: How much do SEC teams get?***
May 27, 2012, 3:33 PM
|
|
Right now the SEC is making about $15M per team per year. I keep hearing that the new contract will be worth between $25M and $30M per team per year. I have no idea if that's accurate, but I can see it especially if the PAC 12 is going to earn closer to $30M per team per year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [940]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1067
Joined: 8/10/01
|
Re: I remember when TV ruined NASCAR. Now, it's ruining college
May 27, 2012, 8:33 AM
[ in reply to I remember when TV ruined NASCAR. Now, it's ruining college ] |
|
Great analogy. Absolutely great analogy.
When I see a schedule come out with Clemson playing in Iowa and Lubbock, I'm just going to feel sad. I'll feel like this was forced on us and won't be excited at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [833]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 1060
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Just one of many reasons... but I don't like the fact
May 26, 2012, 7:50 PM
|
|
They could have if we had been winning for the past decade. However now we have missed out opportunity. Decisions are being made on what is not what could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [629]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 878
Joined: 1/1/02
|
I'm afraid that we've reached the point that the ACC being
May 26, 2012, 8:37 PM
|
|
so bad makes it really hard for an individual member to get better. In football recruiting, especially. Great players won't to play in great conferences, especially linemen and other "non-glamour" position players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ill do my best to convince you...
May 26, 2012, 9:36 PM
|
|
You sound like a reasonable person. I dont think debating with you will be like banging my head on the wall. I can certainly see your point of views. I favor going to the Big 12. But I will also say that I wish the ACC were good enough to where we didnt have to leave. Do we have important rivalries that people care about outside of the ACC fanbase... not really. But theyre rivalries that Im accustomed to and very familiar with. Theyre rivalries that I care about for sure.
However, for Clemson to continue competing means more money. Clemson has done a great job of staying as competitive as we have on the recruiting trail in the face of hige financial odds. But with these new deals, we are going to fall even further behind and Im not sure we can overcome that. People will argue all they want and throw out numbers and stats that are ten or fifteen years old to prove you otherwise. To that, I say the game has changed. The landscape of CFB isnt remotely comparable to what it was jusr 15 short years ago when the ACC had the largest TV contract in sports. Now we're fifth. The college landscape has evolved past what the ACC is willing to do. In 1997, BB and FB were equal in TV deals. ACC BB carried us along with a couple FB schools. Now TV deals are 80%, and the ACC doesnt have a big product to sell. Yes, FSU, VT, and Clemson are FB schools, but they arent natl powers that will draw huge TV viewers. VT, FSU, and Clemson arent winning enough outside of the ACC to carry a big FB deal on their shoulders alone.
The ACC does need to get better and that will help give us more leverage when it comes to making TV deals. BUT, that means a commitment to FB from the rest of the ACC. Are you willing to bet Clemson's fate on schools who have never shown a true passion for FB? Im not. The ACC has had 15 years to adapt to the new landscape and they havent done it. Its time for Clemson to give up on this conference and move on. If we take a chance on this conference getting better, which the trend has been the opposite in recent years, then we are taking a good chance that we're soon going to be seeing other schools outside the ACC that we recruit and compete against getting well over 30 million a year more than we are.
As far as baseball is concerned, dont worry about it. I love baseball, #### I coach it at a small school. But Im realistic enough to know that baseball wont factor into this decision and it shouldnt. Its a non-revenue sports. If we faulter in baseball it wont hurt nearly as much as if we continue to rely on silly ACC TV deals for revenue.
I know I wrote a lot there. If you have anything youd like to argue or ask please feel free. Ill keep my next response considerably shorter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
That was a logical response.
May 26, 2012, 11:24 PM
|
|
But I need someone to show me the money - the realistic amount we will make as member of B12, amount we would make in ACC, and what USuC will make in SEC.
And then there is the ACC buyout clause.
Money is important, but it is not everything. Clemson has the best fan base and a great campus - and money can't buy that. There is something in those hills, and money can't buy that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So I found some numbers for you...
May 27, 2012, 12:06 AM
|
|
The current ACC schools is worth 17 million per school. Our bowl revenue is split up equally, and we have the lowest bowl payouts of any major conference other than the Big East. The reason I bring up the bowl revenue being split up equally is bc even with the huge payout for the Orange Bowl, we ony saw 1/12 of it. We actually lost money to play in that game. Hard to believe right?!
The current Big 12 deal is worth 20 million per school. Now, if you add FSU and Clemson then that would mean the collective 200 million is split 12 ways instead of 10. That would come out to 16.6 million per school WITHOUT a renegotiation. However, if the Big 12 were to add the Florida and SC market to the conference, that deal would be renegotiated plus you could throw in revenue from a Big 12 Chamionship game. The newest Big 12 deal added 5 million per school. If it went up that much again with a new deal, then we could be receiving 21.6 million per school before we see money from a Big 12 Championship game and bigger bowl payouts, which we keep a larger percentage of versus what we keep in the ACC.
The current SEC deal is worth 17 million per school. With the additon of Mizzou and Tex AM, that will now be worth 14.7 million per school. However, theyre renegotiating that now and the numbers floating around are saying the SEC will be getting around 23 million per school.
The important thing to remember too is that in the Big 12 and SEC, we would retain our 3rd tier rights, which can be worth millions in itself. The ACC deal has our 3rd tier rights sold for whatever reason. I think we're the only conference who has done that. We also split money equally with our bowl revenue. So schools like Duke who never go to a bowl get as much money from our bowl contracts as we do. In the SEC and Big 12, if you make a bowl, you keep a large chunk of that payout. We would make more from a percentage of a bowl payout in the Big 12 or SEC than we do the 1/12 split of bowl revenue in the ACC.
As far as having something in our hills, absolutely. But, those hills werent helping too much with recruiting before the WEZ. Go back and look at those recruiting rankings before 05 when we broke ground on the project. The fact is, youve got to keep your facilities upgraded. With the difference in money being even bigger in the next couple of years, it will be hard for us to keep up with other schools in that respect.
Clemson's Ath Budget is around 62 million.
USuC's Ath Budget is around 79 million.
Thats a 27.4% increase on our budget. Wouldnt you like to see a raise like that in your paycheck?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
^^^Thats not short at all. You asked a detailed question^^^
May 27, 2012, 12:07 AM
|
|
I didnt wanna cheat you on the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The older I get the more you realize that life...
May 26, 2012, 10:41 PM
|
|
is continually changing. The older I get the less I like the changes. I just wonder if you have come to the point, like me, where you dislike life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1218]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1965
Joined: 9/27/05
|
Re: The older I get the more you realize that life...
May 26, 2012, 10:53 PM
|
|
That resonates with many of us, 88.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [50]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 283
Joined: 9/17/06
|
Re: Why am I not sold on Clemson joining the Big 12?
May 26, 2012, 11:58 PM
|
|
Its really no surprise that the SEC has gotten better.
Their mid-tier teams have elevated themselves, Arky USuck, and their bottom tier teams are respectable. Money and the interest or will to make their football the best it can be are two important factors. While pre-mid 90's the will was there for these mid and bottom tier teams the money was not.
The ACC has had similar, until now, increased revenue. But The the will of its mid and bottom tier teams has not been.
Look at the coaching hires and capital investments between these two groups, the difference is stark. Spurrier and Petrino vs. O'brian and Randy Shannon? Miami plays 20 miles away from its campus. Then add the Syrucuse and Pitt vs. Texas a&m & Miizz?
The ACC is pretty far flung itself, Miami to Boston, with New York and Pittsburg adds.
Compare the Big 12 mid tier with the ACC's, its very interesting.
Texas Tech
Kansas St.
Okla. St.
TCU
WVU
All have finished a couple of seasons in the Top 20 in the last 10 years, probably last 5.
Who outside of us,FSU, GT, VPI, miami have done so? Even gotten close?
I'm excited about the possibility of playing teams/fan bases that really care about winning in football. And beating any of those teams is an accomplishment. That can't be said for the ACC mid tier. While being eligible for the playoff is important, in reality most years it won't be a concern, and the regular season is what will drive interest.
Bottom line is it is about money. If we don't leave, usuck will be awash with money we don't have. And will recruit better due to us being in a AA league, having inferior facilities, and the ACC will lose its better football programs. While I understand the sentiment that we should stay in the ACC due to traditions & geography; it is without a doubt time to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [151]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 341
Joined: 7/8/11
|
Dude I'm with ya***
May 27, 2012, 2:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [667]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 2337
Joined: 4/19/04
|
but will FSU/Miami/Vtech still be in the ACC?
May 27, 2012, 1:57 PM
|
|
If all those schools stay, then I'm inclined to agree with you that they will start winning and the conference will be relevant again. However if even one of them leaves, we should seriously consider going with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2481]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 9264
Joined: 8/16/99
|
But Clemson vs Wake Forest is attractive?
May 27, 2012, 3:47 PM
|
|
or Clemson vs Maryland?
or Nc State..or Boston College?
DUKE!!!!!!!
the ACC sucks!!-They had their chance,I say good
redience(sp)
#21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [233]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 223
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Maybe you are looking at it backwards
May 27, 2012, 3:52 PM
|
|
I think many Noles and Tigers are sold on leaving the ACC, and our options are limited.
And waiting may limit those options even further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 45
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
