(10-26-2014 05:31 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 09:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 02:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 01:53 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I already said Florida/Georgia in my post.....but still I'd say all teams should be able to/want to play one neutral site game to make things equal since they are conference games.

Louisville can do this right now, in the ACC, provided you can find a partner who is willing to give up one home game every other year for a neutral site game. That's really the cost (I've heard both Georgia and Florida complain about it).

Unsure about that. At one time the ACC prohibited neutral site conference games after Duke moved at least one FSU game to Orlando.

I don't think the league prohibited a neutral site conference game, but excoriated Duke for [size=medium]selling[/size][b] its home game to FSU. That's what they did - sell the home game. UNC and NC State have played at Charlotte, could do so again if both elected.

[/b]

They never sold FSU a home date. They sold one to Florida Citrus Sports that was played in the Citrus Bowl (95) and sold one to Jacksonville that was played in the Gator Bowl(99). Both times Duke got the "home" payout and FSU got the typical ACC visitor's payout.

They did, however, sell Clemson the 1987 game.

I remember some discussion about it after the Jacksonville game. Someone complained that it gave FSU an advantage (probably UNC since they typically make such claims) and wanted a rule put into place. I guess it never got past the ***** session portion of discussion.

(10-26-2014 10:48 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  The conference as a whole plays a set amount of home/away games, then a couple of teams have gone off the path and begin playing a neutral site game...while the rest of the league stays with the set home/away games. I may be digging into it too much here but it seems like the team that was suppose to have an away game that particular year now has an advantage on the rest of their division/conference that still has the normal amount of road games. The team that was suppose to have a normal home game is actually sacrificing alittle bit that year for the betterment of that said game.

Home/road games seem to matter, and matter an awful lot in the SEC in results, I would just think since FLA/UGa have been doing it for quiet some time, that either the rest of the league would raise a stink or join in on the party of neutral games like Arky and A&M are now doing. As for affecting the rest of us in the SEC, it doesn't I know that.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Doesn't avoiding the away disadvantage for one game get offset by losing the home field advantage for one game?

For the life of me, I would have never imagined someone coming up with such a premise. The much bigger issue is the loss of home game revenue and the effect on scheduling, and people talk about that, but I've never heard of these games being considered a competitive advantage.

(10-25-2014 12:49 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Don't you all find it interesting that the rest of the SEC allows A&M and Arkansas to play one of their conference games as a neutral game....without the rest of the league doing it. I'm not sure I'd sign off on that. Every other year they are each taking an away conference game and making it a neutral field game. Something the rest of the league isn't doing besides Florida/Georgia.

I might be wrong but didn't Texas A&M and Arkansas have a series of games signed up to play in Arlington while Texas A&M was still in the Big 12. It might be a Legacy series.

(10-26-2014 05:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 05:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 05:31 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 09:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 02:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Louisville can do this right now, in the ACC, provided you can find a partner who is willing to give up one home game every other year for a neutral site game. That's really the cost (I've heard both Georgia and Florida complain about it).

Unsure about that. At one time the ACC prohibited neutral site conference games after Duke moved at least one FSU game to Orlando.

I don't think the league prohibited a neutral site conference game, but excoriated Duke for [size=medium]selling[/size][b] its home game to FSU. That's what they did - sell the home game. UNC and NC State have played at Charlotte, could do so again if both elected.

[/b]

The chance of Carolina playing another home game in Charlotte is slim. We do have a neutral site game scheduled with South Carolina in Charlotte, however.

Same with us, our fans hate Charlotte. Charlotte doesn't even seat enough extra people to make the move of home game financially interesting for State or UNC. Now, for Duke or WF - it's a different story. Just like BC moving a home game to Foxboro. You have to have an opponent that will fill all the extra seats to make it viable. 10K extra seats is not worth a move. At 20K it becomes more interesting.

The issue with Duke, is that they flat sold a home a game to FSU, but that was a long time ago and Duke was really bad, however the league didn't have to scold Duke to prevent it from happening again, the Iron Dukes raised hell.

During that period, Duke could kill several birds with one stone. FSU is a game they were going to lose wherever it was played. By moving it to Orlando, they pocketed a nice piece of change, plus they went to a destination that could almost be a pseudo bowl trip for a team that couldn't even sniff a bowl otherwise. Nobody seriously thought playing in Orlando gave FSU a competitive advantage it didn't already have for that game.

What it did do for FSU was give them a game closer to home for a lot of their players than even Tallahassee would have been. And since they were playing Duke, they could make sure every one of those players got significant playing time in front of their family and friends.

It was a bad rule by the ACC and it should be repealed (IMO).