(01-18-2013 02:07 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

From the inside view, I see 10 other conference programs that share just as much responsibility to field championship level football as Clemson and FSU. Every conference out there has teams that step up and fill the void when the supposed big dogs have some down years. Not the ACC, no way. From the way posters talk in here there are a bunch of teams who would rather sit back and let Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits.


The really sad thing is out of the 3 new teams coming in, the only one that doesn't look they will fit right in with the "let' sit back and let them do all the work" crowd is Louisville. Considering the fact that you and other posters from both the Pitt and Syracuse fanbase like to say "Clemson and FSU shouldn't have stunk" I would imagine y'all were more than happy to sit back in the Big East while WVU, Louisville, and Cincy did the heavy lifting for you.

Yeah, but Pitt and Syracuse have tradition that Cincy and Louisville lack. That counts for something today, right......

(01-18-2013 03:15 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  ...Pitt and Syracuse have tradition that Cincy and Louisville lack. That counts for something today, right......

BRAND counts for $$$. TRADITION counts for nothing in college football these days.

(01-18-2013 02:07 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

From the inside view, I see 10 other conference programs that share just as much responsibility to field championship level football as Clemson and FSU. Every conference out there has teams that step up and fill the void when the supposed big dogs have some down years. Not the ACC, no way. From the way posters talk in here there are a bunch of teams who would rather sit back and let Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits.


The really sad thing is out of the 3 new teams coming in, the only one that doesn't look they will fit right in with the "let' sit back and let them do all the work" crowd is Louisville. Considering the fact that you and other posters from both the Pitt and Syracuse fanbase like to say "Clemson and FSU shouldn't have stunk" I would imagine y'all were more than happy to sit back in the Big East while WVU, Louisville, and Cincy did the heavy lifting for you.

Yeah I mean I can't speak for the other fans on here but I love when Pitt loses in football. I love to buy tickets and go to events to watch my favorite team lose. Then I go back and pray for the rest of the conference to win so we can still get paid.

(01-18-2013 03:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 03:15 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  ...Pitt and Syracuse have tradition that Cincy and Louisville lack. That counts for something today, right......

BRAND counts for $$$. TRADITION counts for nothing in college football these days.

Mark: Doesn't tradition help to develop Brand? Also Basketball prowess also develops overall Brand. I sense a shifting of traditional FB teams to upgrade hoops (tOSU, Michigan, Florida, Texas, to name a few). If there is a break away...college hoops will become even of of a factor as the Tourney $$$ will be shared among 80-150 or so versus 325+.

(01-22-2013 03:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 03:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 03:15 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  ...Pitt and Syracuse have tradition that Cincy and Louisville lack. That counts for something today, right......

BRAND counts for $$$. TRADITION counts for nothing in college football these days.

Mark: Doesn't tradition help to develop Brand? Also Basketball prowess also develops overall Brand. I sense a shifting of traditional FB teams to upgrade hoops (tOSU, Michigan, Florida, Texas, to name a few). If there is a break away...college hoops will become even of of a factor as the Tourney $$$ will be shared among 80-150 or so versus 325+.

I think tradition => fan support in person, fan loyalty, etc.
when you going after TV markets and T-shirt fans, all those folks [seem to] care about it brand names... IMO. It's the dumbing-down of college sports.

(01-18-2013 02:07 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

From the inside view, I see 10 other conference programs that share just as much responsibility to field championship level football as Clemson and FSU. Every conference out there has teams that step up and fill the void when the supposed big dogs have some down years. Not the ACC, no way. From the way posters talk in here there are a bunch of teams who would rather sit back and let Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits.


The really sad thing is out of the 3 new teams coming in, the only one that doesn't look they will fit right in with the "let' sit back and let them do all the work" crowd is Louisville. Considering the fact that you and other posters from both the Pitt and Syracuse fanbase like to say "Clemson and FSU shouldn't have stunk" I would imagine y'all were more than happy to sit back in the Big East while WVU, Louisville, and Cincy did the heavy lifting for you.

Can't speak for Pitt, but SU is absolutely committed to playing at the highest level. SU's football budget in 2011 ($21 million) was only $2 million less than Clemson's ($23 million) despite Clemson's $10 million advantage in TV money. With the move to the ACC, we will match you $ for $. Don't judge us by the "Robinson era" except for the fact that the guy was a high profile hire (DC for the Broncos in 2 Super Bowl wins, DC for Texas). Over the past 20 years, Syracuse has played in more BCS bowls (3) than Clemson (1). We will be back!

(01-22-2013 04:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Can't speak for Pitt, but SU is absolutely committed to playing at the highest level. SU's football budget in 2011 ($21 million) was only $2 million less than Clemson's ($23 million) despite Clemson's $10 million advantage in TV money. With the move to the ACC, we will match you $ for $. Don't judge us by the "Robinson era" except for the fact that the guy was a high profile hire (DC for the Broncos in 2 Super Bowl wins, DC for Texas). Over the past 20 years, Syracuse has played in more BCS bowls (3) than Clemson (1). We will be back!

Well, the correct terminology would be BCS or Bowl Alliance Bowls.

Cheers,
Neil