»
Topic: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no
Replies: 34   Last Post: Feb 18, 2014 11:36 PM by: Willyumyum®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 34   Pages: 1  

New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:11 PM
 

 
Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no

TigerNet gets Clemson AD Dan Radakovich's thoughts on a proposal to add a ninth ACC game to the football schedule and another proposal for eight ACC games plus 1 SEC game. Full Story »



No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:18 PM
 

would be on board for a 9th ACC game. Why is that the title of the article?


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:23 PM
 

Title seems to be an error. D-Rad and 99% of Clemson folks are against it.


I'm confused. The title of the article says Clemson is

[1]
Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:26 PM
 

against it. Am I missing something?


Re: I'm confused. The title of the article says Clemson is


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:40 PM
 

Hey, you get what you pay for, or don't pay for on T-Net.;)


I didn't think it strayed far from "Clemson AD says no"


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:48 PM
 

sounded to me like we aren't interested by D-Rad's comments...and we SHOULDN'T be either.

no good reason for us to drop the coots...too much history!

forcing or having the option to play an SEC or other strong OOC team...DEFINITELY!

having to do away with an extra "warm-up" game to play some real competition for rankings & chances for the playoffs is a must...no way around it, unless the ACC replaces the SEC in the spin machine...lol. it's happening but may take a minute & who wants to wait for everyone!

only team really in our way is the noles


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 10:40 PM
 

The TITLE OF THE ARTICLE says the Swoffie and several other schools in the ACC are IN FAVOR OF A 9 GAME SCHEDULE. It's leading in the idea that a majority of the ACC schools are in favor of 9 games. D-Rad does not favor the 9 games.

To drop USuC in favor of (place cellar dweller here) doesn't make sense for us. We are trying to get to the playoff game.

The problem is that it will be a vote by the ACC athletic directors for 9 games. Duke might want that, along with Pitt, Syracuse, NC State......

Open up and listen so that we can do something to stop this.


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:21 AM
 

I do not see any hint of dropping USC from the schedule in the article.
I am in favor of a 9 game ACC schedule... I would rather have 6 home games some years than having to pay $35 or $40 for GaSt or SCSt. if those tickets are not sold they then go for 16 or they are given away....
I would expect every ACC game to be worth watching and not just a chance to get the 3rd and 4th strings into a game.
I understand those ACC teams who struggle to get 6 or 7 wins scheduling the sisters of the poor but there is no reason for Clemson to have that type of schedule... I think a 9 game ACC would improve the conference and Clemson's schedule ... with the coming ACC network it would also give us more attractive games to broadcast.


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:24 AM
 

what you dont get is those games will not disappear. it will be the auburns and georgis of the world that go away. especially with everyone playing notre dame every few years.


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:32 AM
 

Auburn UGa and USC is a 70+ ticket... vs 35 or free for SCSt or GaSt.... do the math one game is as much money as 2 for tickets... we do lose vendor sales but that is more than matched by increased TV revenue for being on ABC or ESPN rather than ESPN3.......


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:37 AM
 

Exactly. We need to keep things more flexible...if we add another conference game, our administration will view that as another "quality" game and will therefore probably be less likely to schedule another quality OOC opponent.

I prefer we play 1 OOC cupcake to open the year every year, then obviously South Carolina (whose quality is very high right now, but it hasn't always been the case). Outside of that, we should play at least 1 top-notch OOC opponent (think Georgia, Texas, Southern Cal, Ohio State) and one solid OOC opponent (maybe like Penn State, Nebraska, Tennesseee, etc).

The new name of the game with the playoffs is going to be quality wins & exposure. We're going to need to stick our necks out a bit if we want to make it to the playoffs because we're not necessarily a national brand in the way that Texas, Bama, Southern Cal or Florida State is. It will be very difficult to get that exposure & quality schedule if we're stuck in 9 ACC games.


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:42 AM
 

It is not difficult to add a quality game when OOC game when we are schduling SCSt and GaSt....


Re: No where in the article does it even hint that Clemson


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:58 AM
 

Well I guess I should elaborate. I think with the changes coming this year, we'll be more likely to drop one of those cupcakes for a more quality opponent since we're going to need to beef up our SoS.

Also, the comment about the other conferences going to 9 in-conference games makes sense at first, but when you look deeper, it will have less constraint than you think. Look at the major rivalries of the PAC, B1G and Big XII. Southern Cal/UCLA, Oregon/Oregon State, Texas/Oklahoma, Oklahoma/OK State, Michigan/Ohio State, etc. They're all in-conference. However 3 of the 4 largest rivalries in the ACC are out of state Georgia/GTech, FSU/Florida, Clemson/South Carolina...Florida State/Miami is the only real traditional rivalry (that matters) in ACC football which is in-conference. Yes, we're becoming strong rivals with FSU, but right now it's just a big game, not a traditional rivalry.

The fact is, the ACC's two biggest programs, FSU & Clemson, burn a game for their rival, whereas those other conferences do not. The only exception being Southern Cal/Notre Dame.

So for those teams, going to a 9 game in-conference schedule doesn't hinder their options as much since they aren't locked in to one OOC opponent every year.


Did you not see the "?" The title is asking if CU is on


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:53 AM
 

board for a 9th conference game. The answer is clearly "NO" from the AD.


Keep the Coots

[3]
Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:26 PM
 

Drop to one In State teir two team and line up a Ga/ a Penn State / an Arizona every year. Win 10-11 games in that scenario and you never have to worry about being out of the mix in the new playoff format.

DB23


similar to our plan originally moving forward after addition


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:40 PM
 

to the league, but the original 9 game nonsense lost us a game with a better opponent we had scheduled already. then we picked up another on the quickness but they were a little lower quality.
now we have to hear this stuff again keeping things in turmoil...


Maybe we can trade them for UGA, LSU, or Aubie *L****


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 10:32 PM
 




That would interesting, but do we want the lower ranked ACC


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 10:28 PM
 

schools playing the top tier SEC teams again? *L* Funny how no one seemed to notice that before.


Re: That would interesting, but do we want the lower ranked ACC


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 10:48 PM
 

We obviously don't want (place cellar dweller here) to face Alabama, LSU, Auburn .....but we DO want the opportunity to play them.

I don't think that playing USuC yearly will do it. Don't get me wrong, I want to play them every year( and beat the dog snot out of them), but we have to augment with another top tier opponent. And as long as espn dictates the playoffs, we will have to have to. ACC opponents won't do it; SEC will. GOD knows that ball sack wont be at USuC forever, they will collapse and then what do we do......


why wait for sos to leave ? they have won with defense and


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 7:54 AM
 

our t.o.'s (this past year) sos knows jack squat about fielding a defense, just how to attack one, which hasn't been the problem. come november, i say let's just put him on the losing end of the outcome.


Oh ESPN is "dictating the playoffs?"***


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:04 AM
 




IMO..


Posted: Feb 10, 2014 11:12 PM
 

More games played in the ACC hurts your chances at a
NC.

Now,I realize FSU just won one...but who else were they
going give it to.

j/s
#21


Re: IMO..


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 7:47 AM
 

"They" probably scoped out scenarios that would lead to them giving it Auburn despite the outcome of the game. But you're right ... in the end, "they" had no choice.


Re: IMO..


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:29 AM
 

9 ACC games does not hurt anyones chances of getting into the NC playoff..... any ACC team would be better than SCSt or GaSt! I think FSU played Iowa St or Idaho st last year and I think even NCSt would have beaten them.
I would like for the ACC to get better and I think an 8 game schedule is unsustainable in the long run with B10 and B12 and Pac12 with 9 game conference schedules


The "8 plus an SEC team" idea makes me laugh


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 7:46 AM
 

Number one, why would the SEC agree to that? Number two, not all of our conference has an interest in playing the SEC.


because the SEC has faced some pressure to go to 9 games


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:09 AM
 

as well and 4 of their teams already have permanent ACC opponents. Given that the ACC/SEC are the only ones left with 4 non-conference games, that's really the only option for flexibilty for both leagues.

TV wants 9 league games in all leagues. The schools that are locked in with rivals from other BCS conf still want the 7 home games which is jeoopardized by the 9 game schedule.


ok, that's actually a good point


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 12:09 PM
 

I still think the SEC will turn its nose up at the idea, but you do make very interesting points.


Re: ok, that's actually a good point


Posted: Feb 12, 2014 8:36 AM
 

The SEC teams do not want a home and home against anyone..... but the games on neutral sites can work but Wake or Syracuse is not going to invited to those. Well Syracuse did have one of those against ND in NYC this year.


Re: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no

[1]
Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:58 AM
 

I really hope we can get other ADs on our side of keeping it at 8 in-conference games. There are too many small schools in the ACC for it to be a top-to-bottom football conference. Schools in the SEC, B1G, Big XII, and PAC-12 are filled with larger state schools. The ACC schools will not, and cannot, make a commitment to football like those other conferences. By forcing us into 9 games in-conference, you're essentially killing the conference's chance to compete.

Here's a breakdown of the mean enrollments of the schools:

B1G: 39,750 students, smallest school 14,988, 0 schools under 10,000 enrollment

SEC: 30,507 students, smallest school 12,093, 0 schols under 10,000 enrollment

Big XII: 27,900 students, smallest school 9,142, 1 school under 10,000 enrollment

PAC 12: 34,372 students, smallest school 19,945, 0 schools under 10,000 enrollment

And then there's the ACC:

Mean enrollment: 15,799 students, smallest school 4,815, 3 schools under 10,000 enrollment (this includes Notre Dame)

Our conference doesn't have the size money or commitment from all schools to compete on a national level...we can have several good teams, but if we're going to make waves nationally, a part of that will have to come from marquee out of conference matchups. Clemson-FSU, FSU-Miami, etc. can only go so far. We need to continue the ACC/SEC rivalries in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. We need teams like Virginia Tech to play Ohio State (like they will this year). We need FSU to go play Oklahoma State. We need to push out and try to play teams like Texas A&M or perhaps even someone like Michigan or UCLA.

If we want to, we can choose to look at this like a company. Many big companies have the money, size & resources to produce everything in house. However other companies are smaller and need to hire 3rd parties to produce certain things for them to use. This doesn't make that smaller company less productive or efficient...in fact many times it makes them more efficient. We are that small company. If we're going to run with the big boys, we're going to need to hire 3rd party contractors (in the form of marquee OOC matchups).

That is all.


Re: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:00 AM
 

Whoops, that should read 4 schools in the ACC with less than 10,000 enrollment.


Re: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:01 AM
 

###, why the heck is the site filtering the word "m.a.r.q.u.e.e."?


"marqu*e" is an HTML reserved word


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 12:10 PM
 

and the board might accidentally read it as computer code instead of part of your text, and screw up how the page is displayed.


Re: "marqu*e" is an HTML reserved word


Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:04 PM
 

Ahhhh ok thanks, will have to remember that!


Re: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no

[1]
Posted: Feb 11, 2014 2:12 PM
 

I was just thinking a little more about this...

Imagine if we mixed up who we played depending on the years we played Notre Dame. On years we played them, we'd play another Rust Belt team like Ohio State, Wisconsin, or Michigan. Though this may be tough since there may be a few years between every meeting with the Irish.

I'd still like to maybe set up an out-of-region opponent who we played on a yearly basis...sort of the way ND does with Stanford and Southern Cal. Perhaps we could get UCLA? That'd be really cool.


Re: New Story: Clemson on board for 9th ACC game? Clemson AD says no

[1]
Posted: Feb 18, 2014 11:36 PM
 

For years I have wanted exactly what you suggest. My preference has always been Wisconsin.


Replies: 34   Pages: 1  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: HAVE 2 SEASON TICKETS IN WEST ZONE SEC X ROW U AND PARKING PASS IN SCM LOT. $2500.00 FOR BOTH. CALL ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
3227 people have read this post