|
Replies: 33
| visibility 2202
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
I know all the arguments...
May 28, 2012, 9:03 PM
|
|
I've heard them all. I think both sides have very good arguments.
Bottom line: We are a football school. The ACC had a chance to land Texas, Texas Tech, OU, and OSU and couldn't work it out. That is the epitomy of having failed leadership. We lost millions in that cluster ####!
How can you want to continue to align yourself in a situation that hurts your schools brand? That would have ended the SC argument about playing in the SEC vs ACC that loses us recruits every signing period. It would have increased our budget by 10 million a year easy!
It did not get done because the ACC protected its basketball interest. Stay in the ACC, and we might as well become a basketball school. Maybe then we will have a seat at the table.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
where are the actual reliable news articles indicating that
May 28, 2012, 9:08 PM
|
|
the ACC could have added those schools to the conference? i've read much about that supposed possibility on tigernet. where is the ESPN article?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Re: where are the actual reliable news articles indicating that
May 28, 2012, 9:09 PM
|
|
TN: Is it true that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. asked about joining the ACC a year ago when the Big 12 was in so much turmoil?
JS: There were talks- in a general sense. That conference obviously had some real challenges a year ago. A lot of things could have happened that didn’t. A lot of things were rumored to be happening that didn’t and so I think that some of their schools were reaching out to protect themselves going forward if they needed to look at other homes. I’ll keep it in general terms in that stance.
What do you think? Really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams.
May 28, 2012, 9:28 PM
|
|
you're just hearing what you want to hear to justify your disdain for swofford and the ACC. we talked to ND too, does that mean we "could have had" ND? i think you're reaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
all hate for swofford/unc aside, if you were a whiskey
May 28, 2012, 9:41 PM
|
|
company, would you join a consortium of beer brewers or would you join a consortium of distillers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: all hate for swofford/unc aside, if you were a whiskey
May 28, 2012, 9:49 PM
|
|
If the whiskey consortium had been around snd respected for 60 yrs with long term century old alliances and the beer consortium was on shakey ground and just formed, not knowing the long term ramifications, I'd stick with the respected whiskey group without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
wait, are we saying the big 12 allows beer sales in the
May 28, 2012, 9:53 PM
|
|
stadiums? if so, then i'm on board. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: The ACC is on shaky ground as far as football is concerned.***
May 28, 2012, 10:36 PM
|
|
The internet rumors everyone is posting say that's so, but that's all it is. FSU will stay, Miami has recommitted, VPI will not leave, GT will not leave. If we leave, Notre Dame will take our place. Or, we can stay like we should and ND will join with one other high profile school to make us 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
11
|
They were reaching out and pretty desperate at that point...
May 28, 2012, 9:42 PM
[ in reply to that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams. ] |
|
It would appear that Swoffie did nothing to expedite that merger. If he had, the ACC would be in the position that the Big 12 is now, even better. Instead, the ACC is on the verge of being almost irrelevant on the college football seen. Poor leadership, no vision! He doesn't have a clue!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
OK, since we're just plain making up facts, i'll play along.
May 28, 2012, 9:51 PM
|
|
the group of 4 big 12 schools, led by texas, approach the ACC amid concerns over the continued viability of their own conference.
swofford and co. lay out the options. join up, we'll renegotiate our TV deal, we'll split everything even steven.
texas and co. say not thanks, we'd prefer to keep the money we generate ourselves. or at least have our money be weighted toward us.
the ACC says, no, that's not the way it works here. we split everything equally.
texas and co. say OK, thanks for the info. we were really just weighing our options anyway. we'll probably just stay with the big 12. besides, we're the longhorns and we're never going to give up our TV network.
i can't call that a failure by the ACC to get those teams into the fold. further, i simply can't imagine calling anything a failure when you know absolutely ZERO facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
11
|
The fact is... The Big 12, once dying, is now going strong.
May 28, 2012, 10:00 PM
|
|
The ACC is in a distant 5th place and fading. It could have been the other way around!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
exactly. the opportunity cost of not getting those teams
May 28, 2012, 10:02 PM
|
|
to sign could be the downfall of the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
11
|
I think that the real issue with UT is the LHN. I don't see
May 28, 2012, 10:05 PM
|
|
that as a threat to Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
but assuming they want a a bigger share of the pie than 1/16
May 28, 2012, 10:07 PM
|
|
what would you give them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20215]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
You are making assumptions yourself here
May 29, 2012, 7:50 AM
|
|
Is Texas sharing the wealth with teh rest of the schools now? If so, what makes you think they wouldn't with the ACC?
Conversation probably went more like this:
ACC: "Sorry guys, but your academics suck. Come back when you get your priorities straight."
One year later; Big XII to ACC schools: "How is that academic thingy working out for UNC? Hey, FSU, Clemson, you need a home before in all crumbles? We've got your back."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Re: OK, since we're just plain making up facts, i'll play along.
May 28, 2012, 10:01 PM
[ in reply to OK, since we're just plain making up facts, i'll play along. ] |
|
That is exactly what is! A failure. In an effort to model our ACC on fairrness we lost sight of the big picture and did exactly the opposite. The fact that Texas has its own network is not the concern. The concern is paying Duke, Wake etc the same share of revenue when they have no commitment to football what so ever, and football is bringing in the money. Why should they expand their football budgets, commitment? They are making out like bandits regardless. Unless we leave, and then it becomes more of an issue for them. Maybe then they would support WV and its "academics".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
so how big a slice of the pie do you give those 4 teams to
May 28, 2012, 10:06 PM
|
|
join the league? this is fun. it's kind of giving a big company tax breaks to build a plant in your state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Re: so how big a slice of the pie do you give those 4 teams to
May 28, 2012, 10:13 PM
|
|
The 3rd tier rights should be separate. You can share the pie, but let's not allow a bunch of freeloaders on the train. Look, I don't think the Big XII is a perfect option.. It has many flaws and downsides. I happen to think we are at a crossroads where the alternative leaves us at a significant disadvantage to our rivals and the CFB landscape in general. The future will not be kind to our athletic brand IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: OK, since we're just plain making up facts, i'll play along.
May 28, 2012, 10:25 PM
[ in reply to Re: OK, since we're just plain making up facts, i'll play along. ] |
|
Every conference has their own Wakes, Dukes, Vandys, etc. It's part of the prestige of college athletics. If it's all about money let's just go join the NFL and then everyone will be satisfied?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Re: that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams.
May 28, 2012, 9:50 PM
[ in reply to that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams. ] |
|
We "could have had" WV too... Pitt and Syracuse made more sense? The new TV deals are 80% football generated. But we stuck up our academic basketball noses. That hurts our brand. Sorry you cannot see that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26116
Joined: 2003
|
i actually agree that we should have taken WV. that was a
May 28, 2012, 9:52 PM
|
|
mistake. and there was evidence that WV really wanted to be in the league. there is ZERO evidence about those other 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams.
May 28, 2012, 9:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams. ] |
|
Maybe you just cant see it? Pitt and Syracuse are both historically strong football schools, 10 football national championships between the both of them in their history. Plus basketball, plus academics, what's not to like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [583]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams.
May 28, 2012, 10:11 PM
|
|
How many of Pitt's national titles were won before WWII? How many of Syracuse's big wins were in the 1960s? Syracuse has been a football door mat for a decade, and Pitt hasn't been nationally relevant since the early 1980s when Marino was their QB. They have small fan bases that don't travel, student bodies that are apathetic to football, the populations are declining in their regions, they've had much more basketball success in the last few decades, etc.
Pitt and Syracuse's football glory days are loooooong gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: that's not evidence that we "could have had" those 4 teams.
May 28, 2012, 10:27 PM
|
|
Agreed, so to your point, how many national championships and conference championships have we had in the past 60 yrs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Waaaaaaayyyyyyy more than those 2 football powers.***
May 28, 2012, 10:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Re: Congradulations, you are the first poster to confirm how
May 28, 2012, 10:48 PM
|
|
We'll see! I hope we don't leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [590]
TigerPulse: 34%
20
|
Re: Can you NOT read between the lines? You wanted a link
May 28, 2012, 10:35 PM
|
|
The bottom line is if we, and in we I am including GT,VT.FSU.& CU,UM, were winning, we would not be talking about this. So you can blame all the AD'or Swoffie if you like but they had nothing to do with the way we played the game.We had good players good facilities and it had nothing to do with money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 2202
|
|
|
50
