Clemson tried to get the ACC to show us they wanted to keep

Okay, so I've spent all my energy on this subject and it's time for me to move on and let the mob pass. We’ll see what happens, but here are my thoughts on some of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of the Big 12:

“The Big 12 is big-time football”
The Big 12 has two perennial powers, one of which is down right now. Ok State is great now, but not perennially. That is no better than the ACC, and arguably worse. The ACC has programs that have won it all in Clemson, Miami, FSU, GT, Pitt (technically more than that but we’ll stop in the mid-70’s).

“The Big 12 plays in front of huge crowds”
The average crowd size is about 7,000 more than the ACC. Not “nothing”, but not some huge disparity.

“The Big 12 plays in huge stadiums”
The average capacity in the Big 12 is less than 3,000 more than the average capacity in the ACC.

“The Big 12 will be huge national exposure for us”
According to this presentation, the ACC already has more eyeballs on it than the Big 12:
http://www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/state-of-the-media-2011-year-in-sports-11339432
And that’s with the ACC being down. Wait until FSU or Clemson start getting National Championship hype again.

“If we stay in the ACC, ESPN will rag on us for being in a weak conference”
This will not happen. ESPN just inked a billion dollar deal to show all our games. You are on crack if you think they’re going to take up their precious time ragging the product.

“If we stay in the ACC we’ll be left out of a four team playoff”
This is the four team playoff that doesn’t exist, right? Okay, but if it does come to be, that’s crazy. Clemson started last year unranked and coming off of a losing season. At one point in the season we were #5 in the country. Stop considering the ACC to be the same as mid-level conferences. It is not. The voters know this. And the idea that we would destroy a 60 year old conference because of a temporary (and bad) playoff system is beyond absurd.

“The ACC is a basketball-first conference”
The ACC has added GT (football), FSU (football), Miami (football), VT (football), BC (football), Pitt (football) and Syracuse (basketball…yes, I wish we had added WVU).

“Travel doesn’t matter”
To whom? It will be an expense on the athletic department, a drag on all student athletes, impossible for fans and a consideration for recruits and their families.

“We’ll still travel to away games”
We won’t. None of us can quantify this but my OPINION is that Clemson fans will not go to Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, Texas Tech or Baylor ever. We’ll probably go to Texas, Ok State and Oklahoma…and maybe TCU, early on. But then not at all. That is a HUGE strain to go to regularly. That’s another reason I like the ACC. It’s brutal away games are destinations. I know a lot of you pride yourselves on going JUST for the game, but most of these venues are no nicer than some of our brutal away games, but at least for our games (ACC games), you’re in great cities and destinations like Boston, Miami, Washington (close enough with Maryland). Even Syracuse could possibly be roped in with New York City (a stretch, admittedly). Pittsburgh is even a better town than all of the away games in the Big 12 except for Austin. Clemson’s reputation as a traveling fanbase will end. Oh, and we won’t go to the Big 12 Championship game in Texas either (and it will be in Texas…remember who runs the conference, and besides that, it’s more practical with so many Texas and Oklahoma teams). Right now it’s in Charlotte (perfect for us).

“Academics shouldn’t matter in conference choices”
Maybe you think so, but some disagree. If it’s an issue at all, it’s a HUGE difference between the ACC and the Big 12.

Additional thoughts:
Where are our fans? ACC country
Where are our alumni? ACC country
Where are our prospective students? ACC country
Where are most of our recruits? ACC country

Best basketball in the country? The ACC.

Which brings us to:
“The money”
If I could have someone I trusted (someone without an agenda, which sadly eliminates anyone on this site, myself included) lay it out for me with real, documented differences in the TV revenue, travel expenses, exit fee, tier 3 blah-d-blah, I’d take a look at it (don’t try…you’ll be wasting your time on me). If the delta is truly huge, fine. I don’t think it’s as big as people say it will be, but we’ll see. And quite honestly I’m not sure it will matter. Our program currently wants for almost nothing in terms of facilities and we have the highest paid assistants in the country. If we truly have to pay a head coach $10 million a year to keep him, the sport may have jumped the shark for me anyway.

The ACC has a crisis of leadership. A new leader who can treat all programs fairly, promote the conference effectively, exploit the markets we own and negotiate well will make all the difference in the world.

Swing away, my friends! I’ll respond in the thread if anyone wants me to, and after this I’ll let you all count the ducats we get from sacrificing everything else good about Clemson and college football in order to get the pay day.

CU at the Valley

Orange Blooded [2099]

TigerPulse: 93%

Posts: 2248

Joined: 8/16/05

Re: You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.

May 28, 2012, 4:44 PM [ in reply to You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here. ]

I am an alumnus, and I think we should move to the Big 12 and remain ahead of the curve. EVERYTHING is changing and it would be a good move to go the Big 12 now and not get left behind.

There is a reason West Virginia, as far away from Big 12 country as they are, has joined that conference. Is it right to stay in the ACC for the immediate future? Probably. But think 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now, when technology, travel, money, broadcasts and everything else has changed. Will it be right to be in the ACC then? Or to be in a conference that has put itself forward as a conference wanting to compete with the big boys?

Let's look at recent conference expansion. Sure, the Big 12 lost A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou and Colorado. But those schools were looking to join another conference because of money. And because of what Texas was allowed to do with their network. Great for them, BIG black-eye for the Big 12. Understandable completely.

But since that time, the ACC has expanded with Syracuse and Pittsburgh. The Big 12 went after TCU and WV.

Which of the aforementioned teams have played in BCS bowls since the BCS was formed?
Answer: All of them

Let's look at their BCS history
Syracuse: 1 BCS bowl, record 0-1: lost to Florida in 1999 Orange Bowl 31-10
Pitt: 1 BCS bowl, record 0-1: lost to Utah in 2005 Fiesta Bowl 35-7
TCU: 2 BCS bowls, record 1-1: lost to Boise State in 2010 Fiesta Bowl 17-10; beat Wisconsin in 2011 Rose Bowl 21-19
West Virginia: 3 BCS bowls, record 3-0: beat Georgia in 2006 Sugar Bowl 38-35; beat Oklahoma in 2007 Fiesta Bowl 48-28; beat Clemson in 2012 Orange Bowl (no need to post score here)

Two new ACC schools: 0-2
Two new Big 12 schools: 4-1

Point here is that the Big 12 has gone after 2 schools that have VERY RECENT football success. The ACC went after 2 schools who have had success in football in the past, but let's face it, neither is considered football and up-and-comer.

TCU joining the Big 12 is only going to amplify their success. They will have a much tougher time competing week-in and week-out with the big boys of the Big 12, and they likely won't win a Big 12 title any time soon, at least by my assumption. But the money pouring into their program is incredible. They are expanding their stadium. They are in the heart of the DFW metroplex, the ONLY Big 12 team to claim that, and it is a HUGE recruiting zone. Just ask OU, OSU, Texas and other Big 12 schools how fertile the recruiting ground there is. TCU joining a bigtime league is going to increase their recruiting efforts in that area, and instead of getting the leftovers from OU/Texas, they will steal a few higher-ranked recruits from those schools because they are now on the same playing field. They have won a HUGE BCS bowl recently and have a great coach in Gary Patterson. You have to think the Big 12 made a good move here by adding TCU, just as good as TCU's move to the Big 12 is from their perspective.

WV has been the top dog of the Big East pretty much since Miami, VT and BC left. WV is undefeated in BCS games, including wins over UGA in the Sugar Bowl (which was actually played in ATL that year because of the hurricane damage to the Superdome), defeated a #4 ranked Oklahoma team soundly, and of course us in our best year since the early 90's. They have invested money into a great coach who has Big 12 ties and has an offense fit to compete in the Big 12. Many are projecting WV to compete with OU for the Big 12 title this year. Looks like that was another good pickup by the Big 12, as well as a great move by WV.

On to Syracuse and Pitt....Uh, is anyone talking about them being a great addition to the ACC in football? Syracuse is going to get thrust into a division with Clemson and FSU, and a rising NC State team and a Wake team that NO ONE likes playing. Good luck winning that division, Cuse. And Pitt is going to go up against the likes of Miami, VT and GT in their division, as well as UVA and UNC, two teams many also have as "up and comers". Don't really see Pitt finishing higher than 3rd or 4th in that division.

Not to mention, neither school has had recent football success. One plays in an NFL stadium (see Miami for how well that has worked out) and one plays in a stadium where they fill it up more for basketball than they do football.

To me and to most of the world, the Big 12 is picking itself up from what most consider self-inflicted wounds and re-energizing its conference. The ACC, on the other hand, is trying to re-brand itself as a basketball conference. The ACC is doing this because it realizes it can't compete in the Southeast as a football conference, and in the Northeast, no one cares about football. They care about basketball. Remember when everyone thought the ACC was going to expand beyond 14? Who were the schools mentioned? Rutgers and UConn. Bloggers threw out the Penn State and ND theories, but we all know those got squashed because the ACC (read: John Swofford) would never go after those teams.

Why do you think everyone is talking about the Big 12 expanding? Why do you think there are many rumors and reports that Clemson, FSU, Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami and others MIGHT be interested in joining the Big 12? Because the Big 12 is TRYING to get better, especially in football. And why try to get better in football?......

One word: Money.

If you wish to stay in the ACC, and it seems that you have based on your very well-constructed argument, then that's fine. That's your opinion and you have a right to think like that. But I and many others also have a right to our own opinions and mine is that I see the college football landscape changing as rapidly as the technology in our country will. And in 10 years, being in the ACC will be a very, very bad thing for Clemson, and FSU for that matter.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Big 12: The money had better be huge.

W0W, I never thought of any of that.***

You've got to be joking.***

You have written an elegant defense of Clemson staying in

Re: You have written an elegant defense of Clemson staying in

i think what he is saying is that it would get better

Re: Clemson tried to get the ACC to show us they wanted to keep

How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools?

Re: How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools?

FYI I am not pro Big 12 either...

That's fine. I'm only going on what the poster said. ******

I should have said "football wise"... my fault***

Well, you're still wrong. At least according to Forbes.

Further, I don't know how credible they are. According to

He means teams valuable to generating TV dollars

I believe he meant revenue generated through TV.

alrighty...

Ha. Well, I can't argue with "nu uh",

Re: alrighty...

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Okay - Few questions on this:

Wookie For President!***

Wookie Would Equal Obama

R- - - -E- - - -S- - - -P- - - -E- - - -C- - - -T ! ! !

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.

Most alums also have no clue as to how

Of course. Those who agree with you are smart...

Re: You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.

Re: You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.

Then why did the SEC partner with the Big 12 with the

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

I'd say it is looking pretty good for them right now.***

Wookie - that is a GREAT post!

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Great post! I too think the $$$ have to be huge to consider

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Excellent post.

Jayhawk, sorry. My post is about why Clemson should

Re: Jayhawk, sorry. My post is about why Clemson should

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

Agree. I want us to stay in ACC

Re: Agree. I want us to stay in ACC

Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.

We do not recruit all over the country.

National exposure. Clemson vs. Texas or Oklahoma

you left out clemson vs FSU and WV for national exposure***

TigerBoard POTD