(05-10-2014 10:20 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 06:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah and how can he say well it gives Pitt BC/Wake more often so no thanks, and then wonder why we complain? We have those 2 every year PLUS Syracuse every year. And at least Pitt would be a northern school for BC/Cuse with some history. FSU has no history with them and gets them both every single fricken year. Of course FSU fans have reason to be pissed. They have carried the ACC for years in football and they are the ones getting the shaft. If anything the best football school should be rewarded in their sport.

See, this is the entitled bullschitt I'm talking about. For all the whining about "Tobacco Road this" and "Tobacco Road that," I've never once in our two or three years being associated with this league seen any of those schools' fans act like you guys regularly act.

I don't care how many super talented rapists you are willing to tolerate in pursuit of gridiron glory, you don't get to have everything your way on every single issue, you just don't.

You can huff and you can puff and you can threaten and cajole all you like. You can even hold your breath in the corner and pout but that is never going to change.

If you want to control everything, it's really very simple. Just go back to being an independent like Notre Dame. I can only speak for myself in saying I'll certainly miss your BCS points but I won't miss much else. And I CERTAINLY won't miss your continued insistence that everyone else should bow to you when you enter the room.

As for the North/South thing, please let that go too. The Civil War is looooong over and nobody with a brain even thinks that way anymore. I don't feel any/much closer to Boston College than I do Wake Forest. In fact, it is 6h 48min from Pittsburgh to Winston-Salem, NC and 9h 4min from Pittsburgh to Boston. Who my great grandfather's great grandfather supported politically in the 1860's is completely irrelevant in 2014.

Now, we have played BC more than we have Wake but that only goes so far. We've played them 29 times, you've played them 12 times.

I will acknowledge that Boston is a WAAAY more appealing city to visit than any other ACC city - by a mile TBH - but that doesn't necessarily carry over to football.

My point is, as with any marriage, to make this whole enterprise work, everyone is going to have to give on some issues. We get that and accept it. However, we are NOT going to give on every issue in some sort of ill advised attempt to satisfy your ever growing sense of self-importance.

You guys aren't complaining because you have an ideal division for your school. That is what you aren't getting. It is easy to not complain when the current system suits your school. That was my entire point.

In one breath you say "well no thanks on playing BC/Wake more often, we will keep it how it is". Then in the next breath you are perplexed that FSU fans are pissed off about that system because they have to play those 2 teams every year PLUS Syracuse every year.

So Pitt a team from the north with some history with BC , has fans that want to avoid them yet you don't see why FSU fans are mad about playing both BC/Syracuse every fricken year while only getting their closest trip in Georgia Tech twice in a 12 year period?

Also with the North/South Civil War talk, tell me another league that doesn't do their divisions by geography? The ACC is the only one these stupid zipper divisions. And if they were a true zipper, Virginia and Virginia Tech would be split and BC/Syracuse would be split. Hmm wonder why that didnt happen?.....

Like I said, easy not to complain when the current system favors you guys and hurts FSU.

Also pardon me for wondering how the team that has carried the ACC's reputation in football for decades gets the shaft while all the schools living off FSU get the system they want that is ideal for them. This conference has a reputation that is carried by FSU and this has been going on for years.

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 09:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='10739728' dateline='1399754334']
By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

Exactly which rivals has Pitt had to sacrifice to be a member of the ACC?


Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened. Evidently Notre Dame didn't want that. They kept USC, Navy, and Stanford. They must have overlooked Pitt.

If Pitt wants to play WVU and/or Penn State it is up to Pitt to make that happen, and has nothing with the ACC.

So why exactly are you, Mr "I can't stand the crying", crying about?

Boom. Was going to say this exact thing.

Pitt is intentionally avoiding WVU by all accounts and then whining about not having rivals. STFU.

(05-11-2014 12:01 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

Great rant.

Exactly which rivalry did the ACC force Pitt to give up? And please provide links.

K Thanks!

Is Pitt playing Notre Dame annually like it has for most of the past 80 years? No.

Did the ACC give an exception for Pitt so that it would be the only ACC member to get the Irish more than once every three years? No.

Did Pitt or ND request such an exception? I don't know, and neither do you.

So your rant, and the one by Mr "Get off my Lawn' is bogus.

Got it.


Again, if Notre Dame felt the Pitt "rivalry" was such a big deal they would have either A. secured it as one of the contracted games every year or B. refused the ACC's offer.

Notre Dame is still playing Navy, Stanford, and USC.

Just sayin'

Seems to me the complaint should be directed more towards Notre Dame than the ACC. Evidently Pitt takes the rivalry more serious than the Irish.

As for Penn State and/or WVU....that rests more with their athletic department and yours. The ACC isn't preventing anything there, and any complaints about that is just.....<gasp> whining on the Pitt fan's part.

Imagine that. After all Pitt "gave up" to be a member.


LULZ

LMFAO, you're facts and logic are almost always lacking. When Stanford and Navy joins the ACC, let me know.

Let me know where I ever complained about the ACC causing us to lose one of our most important annual rivals. Nonetheless, the fact that it is no longer an annual game is a fact. Such is the results of conference expansion. It is better for the conference, so everyone at Pitt took it in stride because everyone loses something in realignment. I don't remember anyone, on this board or other Pitt ones, proceeded to beotch like you do acting like Clemson is some entitled superstar. LMFAO!

I'm 100% behind Pitt taking some pain to help the conference overall. I'm 100% against cow-towing to Clemson and FSU desires one iota if it isn't otherwise for the betterment of the conference, which I absolutely do not assume or believe is the case all the time any more than I assume what is best for Pitt is best for the ACC. One thing for sure, your constant uninformed act does nothing but engender more sympathy towards Tobacco Road.

LMFAO at you, again!

Paco, I would add that kap and his kind (i.e. the Walmart Tshirt fan base) is an embarrassment to those of us who actually attended and graduated from Clemson and make every effort to be cordial and gracious to others even in disagreements. Their one redeeming quality is that they are a source of revenue for the athletic department. I have found that he is the exception and not the rule. Unfortunately, the knuckle draggers are louder (and they always gravitate to the internet) than the silent majority who shake their heads and cringe at them. The best thing to say to them is ask them what year they graduated from the school they support.

In terms of hospitality, I have seen opposing fans treated very well. BC fans were even offered bottles of water from tailgates at a September afternoon game. If you ever visit Clemson, I hope that you would have a good experience.

(05-11-2014 11:48 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:42 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 09:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='10739728' dateline='1399754334']
By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

Exactly which rivals has Pitt had to sacrifice to be a member of the ACC?


Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened. Evidently Notre Dame didn't want that. They kept USC, Navy, and Stanford. They must have overlooked Pitt.

If Pitt wants to play WVU and/or Penn State it is up to Pitt to make that happen, and has nothing with the ACC.

So why exactly are you, Mr "I can't stand the crying", crying about?

Boom. Was going to say this exact thing.

Pitt is intentionally avoiding WVU by all accounts and then whining about not having rivals. STFU.

STFU is the exact same thing I think almost every time I read a post by Schott and Baloney.

By far, two of the worst internet fan bases I've run across not just in the ACC, which is definite, but across the college sports message board ecosystem are FSU and Clemson's. By far the most arrogant, whiniest, beoch-filled POS fans in the ACC. You want to drive all sympathy to Tobacco Road, then mission accomplished.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The best part is that you think I care about your feelings or where your "sympathies" lie.

But I must admit, it was nice of you to avoid discussing the actual issue, you know, of your own fans and school wanting to avoid playing WVU and yet still whining about FSU, Clemson, and the ACC destroying Pitt's rivalries.

EDIT: You seem to have deleted/edited out your so-sad remarks.

Are more VT/FSU, VT/Clemson, Clemson/Miami, and FSU/GT games good for the conference?

The answer is obvious, because it's the same reason some of the new schools want to see more games between themselves and Duke/UNC in basketball. So, your logic is flawed by your anger that pre-existing ACC members aren't on our knees praising the almighty panther-god for gracing us with its presence.

(05-11-2014 12:15 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Paco, I would add that kap and his kind (i.e. the Walmart Tshirt fan base) is an embarrassment to those of us who actually attended and graduated from Clemson and make every effort to be cordial and gracious to others even in disagreements. Their one redeeming quality is that they are a source of revenue for the athletic department. I have found that he is the exception and not the rule. Unfortunately, the knuckle draggers are louder (and they always gravitate to the internet) than the silent majority who shake their heads and cringe at them. The best thing to say to them is ask them what year they graduated from the school they support.

In terms of hospitality, I have seen opposing fans treated very well. BC fans were even offered bottles of water from tailgates at a September afternoon game. If you ever visit Clemson, I hope that you would have a good experience.

(05-11-2014 11:48 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:42 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 09:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='10739728' dateline='1399754334']
By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

Exactly which rivals has Pitt had to sacrifice to be a member of the ACC?


Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened. Evidently Notre Dame didn't want that. They kept USC, Navy, and Stanford. They must have overlooked Pitt.

If Pitt wants to play WVU and/or Penn State it is up to Pitt to make that happen, and has nothing with the ACC.

So why exactly are you, Mr "I can't stand the crying", crying about?

Boom. Was going to say this exact thing.

Pitt is intentionally avoiding WVU by all accounts and then whining about not having rivals. STFU.

STFU is the exact same thing I think almost every time I read a post by Schott and Baloney.

By far, two of the worst internet fan bases I've run across not just in the ACC, which is definite, but across the college sports message board ecosystem are FSU and Clemson's. By far the most arrogant, whiniest, beoch-filled POS fans in the ACC. You want to drive all sympathy to Tobacco Road, then mission accomplished.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No need to kiss a crybaby's a**. Having a hissy fit because he's all butt hurt the "internet" doesn't agree with him.

Just make it 4 rivals.

If this was the only forum that I visited, I'd never know that FSU just won a national championship. You'd think fans could find some joy in that. In some minds, it appears that FSU would've won more championships if it wasn't for the ACC holding them back somehow. Too bad they chose the ACC instead of taking that SEC offer.

Too bad the noobs of the ACC think they know what's best and feel they've sacrificed enough for the ACC, despite the ACC bailing them out of a conference that wasn't going to have direct access bowl tie-ins, NCAA self-governance, large tv contracts, etc.

(05-11-2014 03:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Too bad the noobs of the ACC think they know what's best and feel they've sacrificed enough for the ACC, despite the ACC bailing them out of a conference that wasn't going to have direct access bowl tie-ins, NCAA self-governance, large tv contracts, etc.

I know, right? Folks should know their place.

(05-11-2014 03:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Too bad the noobs of the ACC think they know what's best and feel they've sacrificed enough for the ACC, despite the ACC bailing them out of a conference that wasn't going to have direct access bowl tie-ins, NCAA self-governance, large tv contracts, etc.

You dont know this to be a fact. Its a fact now, but who knows how things would have turned out if SU and Pitt had decided to stay with the BE. Talk of bailouts is not one sided. After the BE had turned down a tv deal that equaled an Acc tv deal at the time of $13 million per school, its possible and likely that the BE could have garnered a tv deal at least $20 million per school with Fox and other content hungry networks bidding for the leagues tv rights. With the info that has come out since Maryland left, who knows who else would have excepted a Big 10 invite from the ACC? Not to mention FSU and Clemson. If they were seriously looking at other offers, they likely would have considered a Big East invite and play schools on the east coast rather than the Big 12, for $20 million per school. We could all have been conference mates in the BE instead of the ACC. Not saying these things would have happened but its not out of the realm of possibilities. But it was a mutual bailout.

(05-11-2014 03:42 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 03:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Too bad the noobs of the ACC think they know what's best and feel they've sacrificed enough for the ACC, despite the ACC bailing them out of a conference that wasn't going to have direct access bowl tie-ins, NCAA self-governance, large tv contracts, etc.

You dont know this to be a fact. Its a fact now, but who knows how things would have turned out if SU and Pitt had decided to stay with the BE. Talk of bailouts is not one sided. After the BE had turned down a tv deal that equaled an Acc tv deal at the time of $13 million per school, its possible and likely that the BE could have garnered a tv deal at least $20 million per school with Fox and other content hungry networks bidding for the leagues tv rights. With the info that has come out since Maryland left, who knows who else would have excepted a Big 10 invite from the ACC? Not to mention FSU and Clemson. If they were seriously looking at other offers, they likely would have considered a Big East invite and play schools on the east coast rather than the Big 12, for $20 million per school. We could all have been conference mates in the BE instead of the ACC. Not saying these things would have happened but its not out of the realm of possibilities. But it was a mutual bailout.

If nothing else, the Pitt and SU adds increased the average TV payout by $4 million/school and added at least one bowl game into the mix (and the Pinstripe may very well end up being a bowl game with a decent-sized payout)

At the very worst, the relationship between Pitt and SU and the ACC has been mutually beneficial.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ilng-model


Excerpts:


Maintaining an eight-game scheduling model for ACC football has significant support entering a vote of league athletic directors this week in Amelia Island, Fla., several sources told CBSSports.com.

“Momentum seems to be going that way but a discussion and vote is a few days away,” UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham said Sunday night via text.

Added a separate athletic director who has supported a nine-game model: “I think it's leaning toward an eight-game model. That's what it feels like."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looming large in the decision are league powers Clemson and FSU, both of which favor eight.

A sensible decision by the ACC. Now just keep the divisions as is and we're all set. Is that best for the ACC? Who knows? I just like watching grown men openly weep.

I dont weep over college football. I voice my complaints which is one function of a message board. To voice your opinions. Once again it is easy to not be frustrated when Pitt walked into their ideal setup.

The league is not better off with these same terrible divisions. And the league is not better off with matchups like FSU/GT, Clemson/Miami, Clemson/VT, Miami/Louisville, VT/Louisville etc only happening twice in a 12 year period.

Basketball schools should not be running the football business while the schools that carry this conference in football are given the shaft.

(05-12-2014 09:50 AM)Ragu Wrote:  I dont weep over college football. I voice my complaints which is one function of a message board. To voice your opinions. Once again it is easy to not be frustrated when Pitt walked into their ideal setup.

The league is not better off with these same terrible divisions. And the league is not better off with matchups like FSU/GT, Clemson/Miami, Clemson/VT, Miami/Louisville, VT/Louisville etc only happening twice in a 12 year period.

Basketball schools should not be running the football business while the schools that carry this conference in football are given the shaft.

Not only is that a true statement, it's easily demonstrated. The ACC is leaving money on the table every year by not playing the best possible regular season schedule - and the reason for that? Divisions which are neither geographical nor by rivalries.

one problem is it seems ga tech for one likes the current

(05-11-2014 03:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Too bad the noobs of the ACC think they know what's best and feel they've sacrificed enough for the ACC, despite the ACC bailing them out of a conference that wasn't going to have direct access bowl tie-ins, NCAA self-governance, large tv contracts, etc.

LOL, like any of us on this forum are directly impact in ANY WAY by what decisions are made by the ACC and the member institutions.

FYI, Pedersen was 100% on board for eliminating the divisions. However, since I LIKE the current divisions, I had a lunch meeting with him and we got everything straightened out to MY satisfaction. Thanks to me, Pitt is now OFFICIALLY in favor of 8 conf games and the current division set up.

You're welcome.

(05-12-2014 11:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not only is that a true statement, it's easily demonstrated. The ACC is leaving money on the table every year by not playing the best possible regular season schedule - and the reason for that? Divisions which are neither geographical nor by rivalries.

So, let's assume that the Football Four had been in place this past year and the top two ACC teams - as defined by BCS ratings - had met for this year's league championship. And in this exercise let's posit that Clemson would have upset Florida State in that ACC Championship Game. How much money would that have cost the ACC?