Replies: 51
| visibility 1
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 3:03 PM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
W0W, I never thought of any of that.***
May 28, 2012, 3:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2746]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2262
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You've got to be joking.***
May 29, 2012, 6:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19202]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16712
Joined: 9/2/08
|
You have written an elegant defense of Clemson staying in
May 28, 2012, 3:12 PM
|
|
ACC. I don't agree with you but you should be commended for your effort.
Message was edited by: AThomas®
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: You have written an elegant defense of Clemson staying in
May 28, 2012, 3:19 PM
|
|
yes U did write good post....BUT, we are $20 mil+ behind the dirty c$$ts and this will only get worse if we stay in the dying ACC
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
i think what he is saying is that it would get better
May 28, 2012, 4:59 PM
|
|
no matter what we do unless that move is to the SEC
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
Clemson tried to get the ACC to show us they wanted to keep
May 28, 2012, 3:15 PM
|
|
us by making a minor concession. Despite the financial disparity the top 2 revenue generating schools faced (with regard to instate rivals)... the ACC said "no".
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: Clemson tried to get the ACC to show us they wanted to keep
May 28, 2012, 3:21 PM
|
|
yes and ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, OK & Ok State but ACC said NO and added Pitt and Syr!!swoffie wins again
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools?
May 28, 2012, 3:21 PM
[ in reply to Clemson tried to get the ACC to show us they wanted to keep ] |
|
According to this site, we are 6th:
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/03/21/top-50-highest-athletics-department-revenues/
# School Athletic Department Revenue 1 Florida State $86,946,503.00 2 Virginia $78,439,006.00 3 North Carolina $71,369,784.00 4 Duke $67,986,188.00 5 Boston College $64,078,272.00 6 Clemson $61,174,977.00 7 Virginia Tech $61,077,122.00 8 Miami $60,325,003.00 9 Maryland $57,765,018.00
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8855
Joined: 11/3/04
|
Re: How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools?
May 28, 2012, 3:32 PM
|
|
What credibility do these numbers have?
Fact:
Clemson had the second most TV viewers in the ACC last year, behind FSU (that's for Football and All sports combined). Since expansion is about TV revenues, that's why we are #2. Schools don't share merchandizing dollars with the conference, so it would be foolish to include those numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8855
Joined: 11/3/04
|
FYI I am not pro Big 12 either...
May 28, 2012, 3:33 PM
|
|
nor am I pro current ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
I should have said "football wise"... my fault***
May 28, 2012, 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Well, you're still wrong. At least according to Forbes.
May 28, 2012, 4:40 PM
|
|
No idea where they're getting their numbers, but if you have a source go ahead and post it to refute this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/
Football Revenue Virginia Tech $31,155,870.00 Clemson Univ. $30,994,503.00 Georgia Tech $24,870,064.00 Univ. of Miami $24,631,029.00 Univ. of North Carolina $22,077,550.00 North Carolina State $22,018,738.00 Boston College $19,184,902.00 Univ. of Virginia $19,004,653.00 Florida State Univ. $18,958,861.00 Duke Univ. $16,109,324.00 Univ. of Maryland $11,540,368.00 Wake Forest University $10,227,922.00
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Further, I don't know how credible they are. According to
May 28, 2012, 4:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools? ] |
|
the site, they took them from Department of Education records. I'm open to refuting data. I'm not worried about it...our justification for going or not going has nothing to do with how much money we currently make. I'm just trying to keep the conversation accurate. For example, the fact you listed, where did you find that? (That we had the second most TV viewers in the ACC last year after FSU)
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
He means teams valuable to generating TV dollars
May 28, 2012, 5:05 PM
|
|
80% of the TV contract is Football related. Regional teams playing big name teams. ie. Clemson FSU VT Miami are what gets eye balls. So we (CU FSU) are the most valuable TV revenue producers in the conference contract
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [806]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1661
Joined: 8/27/99
|
I believe he meant revenue generated through TV.
May 28, 2012, 8:08 PM
[ in reply to How are we the top 2 revenue generating schools? ] |
|
not all that money makes it back to Clemson, which is the whole issue. We generate huge amounts for the ACC but wind up being 6th in income ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [636]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 254
Joined: 3/29/12
|
alrighty...
May 28, 2012, 3:33 PM
|
|
“The Big 12 is big-time football” It is... especially compared to the ACC. Who's to say OK St can't keep doing well? That's what happens when you put $ into your football program.
“The Big 12 plays in front of huge crowds” They do.. and will. Plus, you have to add Clemson, FSU and whoever else will get added to those average crowd sizes.. which I'm sure you didn't do.
“The Big 12 plays in huge stadiums” You might want to check your numbers again. Again... you have to add Clemson, FSU to Big12 and the new teams coming into the ACC. The ACC average capacity without Clemson and FSU is 54,800... while the Big12 would be 64,884.
“The Big 12 will be huge national exposure for us” You made my point for me.. the TOP TWO schools who get exposure... you guessed it: CLEMSON AND FSU. If we leave for Big12, it will do nothing but BOOST national exposure.
“If we stay in the ACC, ESPN will rag on us for being in a weak conference” Yes they will... along with the BCS. The ACC will not have a seat at the table with a 4 team playoff. The ACC is the FIFTH best conference. Not where we need to be.
“If we stay in the ACC we’ll be left out of a four team playoff” Yes... we will. It's that simple. AQ's will be out... so even having a "good" season and winning our conference championship WILL NOT get us in.
“The ACC is a basketball-first conference” How blind can you be? This is why this happening in the FIRST place.. the BOT from FSU blabbed his mouth because of the way Swoffie and ACC structured the new TV deal... they focus on basketball. And MORE IMPORTANTLY.. when the ACC had a chance to add teams like Texas and Oklahoma, or Notre Dame to get ahead of the curve with football, they went out and got TWO BASKETBALL SCHOOLS.
“Travel doesn’t matter” It won't matter. See FSU. Look how far they already go. See Miami. Look how far they already go. It WON'T MATTER.
“Academics shouldn’t matter in conference choices” It shouldn't, and doesn't. Period.
“We’ll still travel to away games” ABSOLUTELY. We will only have 4-5 road games a year. And why are belittling Clemson's fan base??? There are thousands of Clemson fans scattered around the country that would LOVE to be able to show up at these Big12 schools. WE WILL TRAVEL.
“The money” Will be MORE money than we could EVER make staying in the ACC. It will put us on the same "playing" field with our feathered friends, instead of being left in the dust.
Your post is unbelievably TERRIBLE.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Ha. Well, I can't argue with "nu uh",
May 28, 2012, 4:05 PM
|
|
which is what most of your responses are. That's not to say they're wrong, mind you. Just that when I say the Big 12 stadiums aren't appreciably bigger than the ACC stadiums and you say "yes they are"...well, alright then.
Let's see:
"Who's to say OK st can't keep doing well?" Who's to say that Wake Forest won't go on a ten year national championship run? Ok State HASN'T kept doing well. Why do Big 12 programs get the benefit of the doubt but ACC programs don't? Oh yeah, because you want to leave the ACC.
On crowd size and stadium size, I've posted the numbers and will let them speak for themselves.
On adding Clemson and FSU, you are correct. I'm comparing the existing ACC to the existing Big 12 (including WVU and TCU).
On national exposure, I don't know what you're talking about with the top two schools who get exposure.
On ESPN mocking their own product - Okay, agree to disagree. ESPN is in the business to make money, and "Hey folks, don't watch this crap" is bad for business.
On being left out of the four-team playoff, sorry, I think you're wrong, and there's no point in discussing it. You have no way to prove it and I don't either.
On being a basketball-first conference: The FSU BOT was shown to not know what he was talking about. When did we have a chance to add Notre Dame?
Travel will matter. I see FSU. So what?
I am not belitting Clemson fans. I'm stating a reality. We are a great traveling fan base but three or four trips to the midwest is absurd. It won't happen. If you're lucky, we'll get a chance to see which of us is right soon enough.
And the Clemson fans are in ACC country. There are not thousands of Clemson fans scattered around the country waiting for us to play in the midwest. Here is the breakdown by state, as posted previously and as found at http://www.clemson.edu/alumni/dashboard/
SC: 61,284
ACC Country: NC 10,336 GA 9,594 FL 4,317 VA 3,713 MD 2,030 PA 1,467 NY 1,342 MA 899
Big 12 Country: TX 2,291 WV 178 KS 173 OK 134 IA 99
And of course, Texas is bigger than NY, PA, MA and MD combined.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: alrighty...
May 28, 2012, 7:33 PM
[ in reply to alrighty... ] |
|
He's being honest and truthful.... unfortunately you are making up facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16763
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 3:44 PM
|
|
Eyeballs are not correct. These numbers are based on Eyeballs on the top 2 tier broadcast. They do not include tier 3, Longhorn Network. This open up another avenue for us to make money if we can sell our 3rd tier rights.
Message was edited by: Tiger Contractor®
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Okay - Few questions on this:
May 28, 2012, 7:08 PM
|
|
#1) How do you know that these numbers only include Tier 1 and Tier 2?
#2) Why doesn't Nielsen include the Longhorn Network?
#3) Please explain to me how Clemson's potential Tier 3 package would increase our national exposure. Would we sell it to someone who shows our game against Furman nationwide?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4096]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5219
Joined: 10/23/10
|
Wookie For President!***
May 28, 2012, 3:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8805
Joined: 11/26/99
|
Wookie Would Equal Obama
May 28, 2012, 3:56 PM
|
|
Sons of Clemson totally disected and shredded the flawed, misguided and inaccurate arguments of Wookie.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3220]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1047
Joined: 1/12/12
|
R- - - -E- - - -S- - - -P- - - -E- - - -C- - - -T ! ! !
May 28, 2012, 3:48 PM
|
|
Self-respect. Respect from our piers.
As I've said before, the $$$ just makes it easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [155]
TigerPulse: 26%
Posts: 399
Joined: 1/28/09
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 3:53 PM
|
|
Great Post!! i agree, i am one of the few that hopes we stay in the ACC. I think some believe it will make us comparable with the SEC if we move, but I agree, if the U and FSU get back to somewhat of a flash of the old days, combined with VT and clemson it will be better than the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.
May 28, 2012, 4:06 PM
|
|
I've spoken with many fellow alumni and so far I've met one that says that they think the move is "interesting". Otherwise, they were all against it. The board doesn't always accurately represent all Clemson fans.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8805
Joined: 11/26/99
|
Most alums also have no clue as to how
May 28, 2012, 4:17 PM
|
|
the college football landscape is changing and the implications the SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 will have on the future of the ACC and it's ability to allow the football schools in the conference to compete. In other words the majority of alums are very ignorant of the current situation faced by Clemson and FSU. Many see no reason to evacuate but if they could see the new college football tidal wave approaching just off the coast they would be hauling a$$ to higher ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Of course. Those who agree with you are smart...
May 28, 2012, 4:20 PM
|
|
those who disagree with you are morons. Makes sense.
Hey, if we move, let's hope you're right. Let's also hope that the administration presents the facts in a way that those of us who were not in favor of the move can understand the necessity of the move, so as not to alienate the fan base further.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: You're not one of the few. You're one of the few on here.
May 28, 2012, 7:37 PM
|
|
Three words to you.... You're an idiot!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 7:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge. ] |
|
I agree, so if we decide to leave and then FSU reneges and then Notre Dame takes our place.... how do we then look and survive? Only one school has ever left the ACC.... what good did it do them? I say it's best to stay!!!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43567
Joined: 11/17/03
|
I'd say it is looking pretty good for them right now.***
May 29, 2012, 7:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Wookie - that is a GREAT post!
May 28, 2012, 6:31 PM
|
|
Finally someone on here went and got some facts and supported their opinion with facts!
Although there is really nothing to add to what you have outlined, may I say I agree with you that there is no way the ACC gets left out of a 4 team playoff. The Big 10 and PAC 10 are pushing for it to be the 4 conference champions but that will not pass; it's unfair to everyone else and their only motivation is to prevent the SEC from having more than one team in the playoff. The SEC of course favors the top 4 teams in a playoff, which may benefit the SEC but it is the only fair way to do it without creating a huge mess.
Also, you are so right about travel. Unless all season ticket holders are retired and financially independent there will be a huge drop in fan attendance at away games. The time and money involved in making those trips will be more than anyone who has a job and a house payment can afford.
You are dead on about the money as well. So many posters on this board throw figures and terms around like they are actually in the business of negotiating TV contracts. Fact: TDP said in his recent interview that the TV contracts are private and not subject to FOI requests and even he doesn't know what is in other conferences contracts. Therefore, there is really no way anyone on this board knows within a few million dollars of what Clemson's net increase in revenue will be - if any after travel is considered.
Finally, academics matter. Blowhards on a message board may not like it, but the people making the decisions (president and BOT) care about who they are associated with and the Big 12 is well below the ACC academically - the Big 12 is even below the SEC.
Wookie I hope I have not taken away from your excellent post - just wanted to add my support to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 7:30 PM
|
|
Great post!!! It's hard to believe the naysayer opinions especially after reading this.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [211]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 416
Joined: 3/1/02
|
Great post! I too think the $$$ have to be huge to consider
May 28, 2012, 7:41 PM
|
|
this.....
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [200]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 85
Joined: 5/24/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:16 PM
|
|
I just wanted to say.
You know what the difference between the Big 12 and ACC is? Really?
In the ACC if FSU/Clemson or Va Tech aren't doing well, the conference is worse than the Big East.
In the Big 12 if OU or UT aren't doing well, someone else is. OU and UT are the big names, but every single year, there are 2 or 3 other teams that are very good.
Oklahoma State and Kansas State and Baylor were up there with the big boys last year.
Before that, it was Texas Tech and Missouri and Nebraska.
Before that it was lowly Kansas, Missouri and Texas Tech.
You see a trend?
When was the last time the ACC was propped up by its non major football teams to help keep it afloat when the big boys were down? The answer: Never.
In the Big 12, if OU or UT or both are having a bad year, someone else is #### good. Every.Single.Year.
THAT'S the difference.
The question you should ask yourself: Do you want to be in a conference that places the blame on the "football" schools for not doing better instead of sacking up and picking up the slack? Or do you want to be in a conference that, regardless of year, is going to have someone that other big leagues will be scared to play?
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:45 PM
|
|
Jayhawk, you have no dog in this hunt except your own selfishness.
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [200]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 85
Joined: 5/24/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:53 PM
|
|
I don't know how I am being selfish. On my first post here I specifically stated I was OK with adding Clemson and FSU but I am also happy with 10 teams. I like the round robin in football and the double round robin in basketball.
If we expand or do not does not really matter to me. I merely came over here to see what Clemson fans thought because the ones I had encountered on other message boards (Particularly on KU's Scout message board on this thread: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=172&f=2485&t=9014607&p=1 going by the name of Joe63 from the Clemson Scout site who is 93 years old) were very cordial and seemed to be genuinely excited about the prospect.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Excellent post.
May 28, 2012, 8:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge. ] |
|
Out of 10 Big 12 teams, 6 (Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WVU, TCU, and Kansas) have won BCS bowls in the last 5 years.
Out of 14 ACC teams, only 1 (VT...against Cincinnati) has won a BCS bowl game in the last 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Jayhawk, sorry. My post is about why Clemson should
May 28, 2012, 10:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge. ] |
|
not join the Big 12. A retort of "our mid-level teams step up more often than ACC mid-level teams" is not going to move the needle. I'm not saying it's a valid or invalid argument. It's just not relevant. But good for you - You're proud of your conference and you should be.
Just out of curiosity, if the roles were reversed - If the "powers" of the ACC (FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami) were playing well and one or two other teams (NCSU, BC, Maryland) was also stepping up, and the ACC came a-callin', would you grab K State and join an East Coast conference?
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Jayhawk, sorry. My post is about why Clemson should
May 28, 2012, 10:51 PM
|
|
Excellent question!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:20 PM
|
|
read the post by 76jayhawk!!
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:46 PM
|
|
Of course he wants us to switch, he's from Kansas.... maybe he needs to move back home....
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [928]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 891
Joined: 9/16/08
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 28, 2012, 8:42 PM
|
|
Excellent post. I tend to agree with your thought process. Go tigers
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [93]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 113
Joined: 4/11/03
|
Agree. I want us to stay in ACC
May 28, 2012, 9:20 PM
|
|
I agree with most of your points (except about WVU). Long term I believe we can change and modify the ACC to be a better conference than B12. Right now they are up a bit, but I believe the ACC will come back and top them soon. The B12 is not well-positioned for the future, and definitely not well-positioned for Clemson and our fans. I realize that markets matter more than geography these days, it seems, but I don't relate to most of the schools in the B12, and I believe that is true for most Clemson fans. And by the way, I also don't believe most Clemson fans are represented by the people that frequent this site. Including me.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: Agree. I want us to stay in ACC
May 28, 2012, 9:26 PM
|
|
Amen Supersam, a voice of reason!
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [115]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 44
Joined: 10/15/09
|
Re: Big 12: The money had better be huge.
May 29, 2012, 3:29 AM
|
|
The addition of FSU was for football, as was the addition of Miami. The addition of VT was because UVA threatened legal action or possibly leaving the conference if VT wasn't at least invited to the conference. Pitt and Syracuse are solely for basketball purposes.
We recruit all over the country, and moving to the Big 12 would only help our recruiting area. The high level recruits from the Southeast (ie acc country) are also sought after by sec schools. Many of whom we lose to those schools.
I agree that the acc could be a great conference if we had better leadership, but since the basketball schools are happy with it; it is up to the football schools to make a stance. VT won't because of the circumstances of how they came into the conference, and Miami won't because they know no one will touch them right now. Clemson, GT, and FSU are the only ones who can force a change in the league, or find a new home.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
We do not recruit all over the country.
May 29, 2012, 7:52 AM
|
|
http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/clem-m-footbl-mtt.html
Please take a look at our roster and tell me if we recruit all over the country. One player from California. Some from Tennessee (a stone's throw from Clemson). A couple from Alabama. EVERYONE else is from ACC country. You don't "recruit nationally" just because you have a few from outside your normal geography.
I agree with you that VT was forced upon the ACC leadership. Thank goodness it was. But the fact of the matter is that they are in. That's another football school.
Pitt is not a "basketball" school. They are a football school with a strong basketball team. They were added based on sports, academics, geography and market.
Yes, the key is new leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
National exposure. Clemson vs. Texas or Oklahoma
May 29, 2012, 7:29 AM
|
|
Non-national exposure - Clemson vs. the other 8 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16330]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25411
Joined: 10/10/06
|
you left out clemson vs FSU and WV for national exposure***
May 29, 2012, 7:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 1
|
|
|