(12-10-2019 11:01 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 01:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 12:58 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’m starting to think the ACC needs to do a 9 game conference schedule. The 9th game however can be a “neutral” site game. So potentially a schedule could be 4-4-1. Imagine UofL vs VT in D.C. or FSU vs UNC in Tampa.

What this does is give an ACC team a guaranteed win while also giving both teams a recruiting trip to an area with a hot bed of talent, it would be a cool way to do a cross over game and it would cycle through the conference much quicker.

Yes I know about our little SEC rivalry blah blah blah.

Three problems:

You make it to where the team who play the SEC rivalry games and the team who play the parasites @ South Bend do not gave seven home games.

For every ACC team that wins you have an ACC team that gets an assured loss.

And NCAA rules prohibit official recruiting visits at neutral site events, neutralizing the recruiting effect.

As an outside observer, Kaplony is right. The ACC is correct in staying at 8 games. Going to 9 will only do two things, make it less likely your champion is undefeated and it make it more likely that you have fewer bowl eligible teams (your 6-6 teams will likely have an extra loss playing a conference mate vs an OOC low level G5). This will ultimately cost the conference revenue. If you don't believe it would work out this way see the Pac12.

The point is trying to act as though there wasn't a time when Clemson wasn't contributing to the conference and that some other programs are just parasitic and not trying to win on the field. From all of the capital investments in facilities, coaching changes, salaries, etc there is no way anyone can say ACC programs not named FSU or Clemson isn't trying to change their football culture. Unlike bball, it doesn't happen overnight and it certainly isn't a guarantee that it will happen even if you throw tons of money in improvements. Hell, we saw what making the wrong coaching selection can do at UNC and at Miami. You can even make the argument that FSU is suffering because of how long it took Bowden to retire and although Jimbo delivered a national championship, he damages the program beyond a just reloading. It still takes the right coach to get to that level. That is why someone pointed to a time when Clemson wasn't king and as an athletic program, it certainly wasn't contributing to any thing else.

I have no doubt that fans of their programs want success on the field and some athletic programs have the luxury to be able to contribute to the conference beyond the football field while trying to upgrade their football accomplishments. Others may not but still contribute via success in a different sport. It is those contributions that shouldn't be brushed aside simply because their program is doing well. And that, my friend is total bs.

Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

(12-10-2019 11:41 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  College football "playoff" needs fixing. It needs to go to automatic bids for conference champions and that should include all 10 football conferences. Although that may cause the "best" team not always getting in the playoff, so be it. Everyone wants to provide a buffer or net. Bottom line is winning. If you win, you in. If you are the best team and wasn't capable of winning your conference championship, oh well; should have tried harder. Injuries, attitude, etc are all part of the game and if it impacts the "best" teams ability to win out, then it wasn't meant to be. Enough of all the safety nets. There are 10 conferences and 10 conference champs. Determine your champ from that pool.

Obviously as a fan of a school "on the outside looking in" I agree with your post. Will never happen though... current system is doing exactly what it was designed to.

9 games is a mistake as it will help no one.

What is needed is some sort of ending to or rotation of the divisions.

It's akin to Nash Equilibrium and the game is college football not the college football games.

Depending on which division you are in, you have a different strategy with regards to College Football. For lack of a more precises definition let's say you are either All In, Mostly In, Middling, and not really In.

In the Atlantic Division Clemson and FSU are ALL IN. If you are NC State, Louisville, WF, Syracuse, and BC you likely realize that your best position, given FSU's and Clemson's is Mostly In. At Mostly In you have a few good years, perhaps a run near the Atlantic Title and a shot at the Orange Bowl.

In the Coastal you do not need to be ALL IN to win the Coastal Title and have a shot at the Orange Bowl. You can be mostly in or even middling and do that. As such there is no incentive for a third ALL IN school to rise. You have to split Clemson and FSU to start that process if you agree with game theory.

ALL IN For an ACC school means spending at least $40 million a year on football.
Mostly IN is probably the low 30's
Middling is going to be around $24 million
Not Really In is going to be below $18 or so million

ALL IN represents the highest overall risk to the Athletic Director and the school. Not Really In only works if you content to ride on the others in the conference. For football purposes, you have to decide what will get for your incremental spending to go from middling to Mostly In.

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 11:01 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 01:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 12:58 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’m starting to think the ACC needs to do a 9 game conference schedule. The 9th game however can be a “neutral” site game. So potentially a schedule could be 4-4-1. Imagine UofL vs VT in D.C. or FSU vs UNC in Tampa.

What this does is give an ACC team a guaranteed win while also giving both teams a recruiting trip to an area with a hot bed of talent, it would be a cool way to do a cross over game and it would cycle through the conference much quicker.

Yes I know about our little SEC rivalry blah blah blah.

Three problems:

You make it to where the team who play the SEC rivalry games and the team who play the parasites @ South Bend do not gave seven home games.

For every ACC team that wins you have an ACC team that gets an assured loss.

And NCAA rules prohibit official recruiting visits at neutral site events, neutralizing the recruiting effect.

As an outside observer, Kaplony is right. The ACC is correct in staying at 8 games. Going to 9 will only do two things, make it less likely your champion is undefeated and it make it more likely that you have fewer bowl eligible teams (your 6-6 teams will likely have an extra loss playing a conference mate vs an OOC low level G5). This will ultimately cost the conference revenue. If you don't believe it would work out this way see the Pac12.

The point is trying to act as though there wasn't a time when Clemson wasn't contributing to the conference and that some other programs are just parasitic and not trying to win on the field. From all of the capital investments in facilities, coaching changes, salaries, etc there is no way anyone can say ACC programs not named FSU or Clemson isn't trying to change their football culture. Unlike bball, it doesn't happen overnight and it certainly isn't a guarantee that it will happen even if you throw tons of money in improvements. Hell, we saw what making the wrong coaching selection can do at UNC and at Miami. You can even make the argument that FSU is suffering because of how long it took Bowden to retire and although Jimbo delivered a national championship, he damages the program beyond a just reloading. It still takes the right coach to get to that level. That is why someone pointed to a time when Clemson wasn't king and as an athletic program, it certainly wasn't contributing to any thing else.

I have no doubt that fans of their programs want success on the field and some athletic programs have the luxury to be able to contribute to the conference beyond the football field while trying to upgrade their football accomplishments. Others may not but still contribute via success in a different sport. It is those contributions that shouldn't be brushed aside simply because their program is doing well. And that, my friend is total bs.

Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

Cool. College football will have to do something to make it the same across the board. All conferences should play the same amount of conference games. That would at least align the metrics used to compare. I think 8 is the best thing. As you noted, that 9 game league schedule really hurt the Pac this year. It allows for that all important 7th home game. I would like to see some sort of criteria placed on FCS versus FBS opponents as well as home/home.

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

You realize that this isnt geometry? Being right about one thing doesnt mean you are right about everything else.

You made an ass of yourself with the comment me and Indy were ACTUALLY responding too.

Now carry on with your weird combo of superiority mixed with persecution complex. This board just wouldnt be the same without it

(12-10-2019 03:53 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

You realize that this isnt geometry? Being right about one thing doesnt mean you are right about everything else.

You made an ass of yourself with the comment me and Indy were ACTUALLY responding too.

Now carry on with your weird combo of superiority mixed with persecution complex. This board just wouldnt be the same without it

So Clemson was "wandering in the desert"......what do you call what Louisville, UNC, and the rest of the ACC not named FSU and Virginia Tech have been doing?

The point remains that outside of possibly Virginia Tech, although that could be called into question recently, the rest of the conference is expecting Clemson and FSU to carry the load and refuses to step up when either is down. FSU has been down for two years now.....who has stepped up to take their place? Absolutely nobody. As usual.

The 2020 recruiting rankings show that the trend is likely to continue. Out of the top 50 players in this class there's nine players committed to ACC schools. Clemson has six of them. Out of the top 25 recruiters in the country three recruiters with ACC ties are listed. They are all three Clemson coaches (Todd Bates, Robbie Caldwell and Jeff Scott) Of the seven five star recruits committed to ACC schools six are going to Clemson. Clemson has as many or more five stars committed than ten other ACC programs have four stars. GT and UNC are in the top 25 in rankings but both are there based upon primarily sheer numbers as their average player score is a strong deviation from the scores of programs above and below them in the rankings. What gives you hope that things are going to change in the near future?

I think you'll find GT will sign at least one more 4* and they are in play in 4-5 more real impact players and no doubt scouting the transfer market too. Ohio State and Alabama and Florida are all sniffing around GT's 4* RB. And by sniffing I mean of course seeing if he's amenable to bag men before early signing day.

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

I don’t hate ya pal, but UNC football is on the upswing.

(12-10-2019 07:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

I don’t hate ya pal, but UNC football is on the upswing.

Based on what? A mediocre recruiting class buoyed by sheer numbers rather than overall talent?

A 6-6 season?

Hysteria over a washed up 68 year old coach who flamed out at a school with far more money, far more resources, and far better tradition?

Clemson is carrying 98% of the ACC's weight right now and for basically the last 3-4 years. Without a doubt.

Frankly, there isn't a close 2nd. The ACC is a one horse conference in football and that is where 80-85% of the revenue is.

Without Clemson football, the ACC is totally screwed. The ACC has gotten weaker instead of stronger. Mainly due to FSU's fall. But even when FSU was doing well, a two team conference isn't enough.

The ACC needs to see schools like Miami, Va Tech, and maybe even a UNC (they have $$$ and a brand) or UVA ($$$ and a brand) occasionally make a playoff or at least win a New Year 6 bowl.

But at this point, I think the ACC should have incentivized payout and pay Clemson extra for doing the extra work.

(12-10-2019 06:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 03:53 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

You realize that this isnt geometry? Being right about one thing doesnt mean you are right about everything else.

You made an ass of yourself with the comment me and Indy were ACTUALLY responding too.

Now carry on with your weird combo of superiority mixed with persecution complex. This board just wouldnt be the same without it

So Clemson was "wandering in the desert"......what do you call what Louisville, UNC, and the rest of the ACC not named FSU and Virginia Tech have been doing?

The point remains that outside of possibly Virginia Tech, although that could be called into question recently, the rest of the conference is expecting Clemson and FSU to carry the load and refuses to step up when either is down. FSU has been down for two years now.....who has stepped up to take their place? Absolutely nobody. As usual.

The 2020 recruiting rankings show that the trend is likely to continue. Out of the top 50 players in this class there's nine players committed to ACC schools. Clemson has six of them. Out of the top 25 recruiters in the country three recruiters with ACC ties are listed. They are all three Clemson coaches (Todd Bates, Robbie Caldwell and Jeff Scott) Of the seven five star recruits committed to ACC schools six are going to Clemson. Clemson has as many or more five stars committed than ten other ACC programs have four stars. GT and UNC are in the top 25 in rankings but both are there based upon primarily sheer numbers as their average player score is a strong deviation from the scores of programs above and below them in the rankings. What gives you hope that things are going to change in the near future?

How you keep trying to shift away from what I was actually talking about is amazing.

Louisville has been down for two years and it coincided with FSU being down also. Before that Louisville was consistently ranked and actually adding to the ACC profile.

You seem hellbent on lumping us in with the Wakes, BC's and UNC's of the world for whatever reason. And then you even concede that Virginia Tech isnt one of the parasites, which is a team that has an almost identical record in both conference and overall record than since joining the league 5 years ago, even with Louisville's abortion season last year.

I was thinking with the 9th conference game there would be less challenging OOC games, not get rid of the games vs the FCS and G4s. So no more Bama vs Duke type of games. We have SEC rivalry games and ND, plus an occasionally good G4.

(12-10-2019 08:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Based on what? A mediocre recruiting class buoyed by sheer numbers rather than overall talent?

They have 5 more commits than Clemson and are ranked 15? What am I missing?

Quote: A 6-6 season?

Upswing is an improvement and trending upwards. So yes, especially considering they were picked to finish last in the Coastal.

Quote:Hysteria over a washed up 68 year old coach who flamed out at a school with far more money, far more resources, and far better tradition?

Well, maybe Texas is the problem, because nobody is winning there like he did.

Washed up? See my previous comments. Bill Snyder coached damn near until 80. Brown might outlast Dabs in the ACC!

(12-10-2019 10:01 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I was thinking with the 9th conference game there would be less challenging OOC games, not get rid of the games vs the FCS and G4s. So no more Bama vs Duke type of games. We have SEC rivalry games and ND, plus an occasionally good G4.

I don't like the uneven conference schedule, it creates an unbalanced amount of home/away games.

I think VaTech and Louisville should be crossover partners, leaving Boston College with Virginia (it can also be some sort of Commonwealth "rivalry").

(12-10-2019 09:33 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 06:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 03:53 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 12:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those are two separate issues. The issue I am commenting on was Garrett's recommendation for a 9 game conference schedule to "improve the ACC", to which Kaplony said would be a mistake due to the risk of adding another loss to everyone's schedule (including your champ).

You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

You realize that this isnt geometry? Being right about one thing doesnt mean you are right about everything else.

You made an ass of yourself with the comment me and Indy were ACTUALLY responding too.

Now carry on with your weird combo of superiority mixed with persecution complex. This board just wouldnt be the same without it

So Clemson was "wandering in the desert"......what do you call what Louisville, UNC, and the rest of the ACC not named FSU and Virginia Tech have been doing?

The point remains that outside of possibly Virginia Tech, although that could be called into question recently, the rest of the conference is expecting Clemson and FSU to carry the load and refuses to step up when either is down. FSU has been down for two years now.....who has stepped up to take their place? Absolutely nobody. As usual.

The 2020 recruiting rankings show that the trend is likely to continue. Out of the top 50 players in this class there's nine players committed to ACC schools. Clemson has six of them. Out of the top 25 recruiters in the country three recruiters with ACC ties are listed. They are all three Clemson coaches (Todd Bates, Robbie Caldwell and Jeff Scott) Of the seven five star recruits committed to ACC schools six are going to Clemson. Clemson has as many or more five stars committed than ten other ACC programs have four stars. GT and UNC are in the top 25 in rankings but both are there based upon primarily sheer numbers as their average player score is a strong deviation from the scores of programs above and below them in the rankings. What gives you hope that things are going to change in the near future?

How you keep trying to shift away from what I was actually talking about is amazing.

Louisville has been down for two years and it coincided with FSU being down also. Before that Louisville was consistently ranked and actually adding to the ACC profile.

You seem hellbent on lumping us in with the Wakes, BC's and UNC's of the world for whatever reason. And then you even concede that Virginia Tech isnt one of the parasites, which is a team that has an almost identical record in both conference and overall record than since joining the league 5 years ago, even with Louisville's abortion season last year.

Louisville has finished more seasons in the ACC unranked than they have been ranked. Nobody cares about a ranking in week 4, it's the end of the season ranking that matters and thus far Louisville has not delivered more than they have delivered.

And I'm the one shifting away when other posters are trying to bring up basketball in a football discussion, or want to talk about stuff from years ago in a discussion about what needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW?

(12-10-2019 10:01 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I was thinking with the 9th conference game there would be less challenging OOC games, not get rid of the games vs the FCS and G4s. So no more Bama vs Duke type of games. We have SEC rivalry games and ND, plus an occasionally good G4.

So we eliminate high profile games, College Gameday type games like Clemson has coming up against UGA, LSU, OU, etc for ACC Network games against Duke, Pitt, and UVA?

There's far less positives about a 9 conference game schedule than there is negatives.

(12-10-2019 06:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think you'll find GT will sign at least one more 4* and they are in play in 4-5 more real impact players and no doubt scouting the transfer market too. Ohio State and Alabama and Florida are all sniffing around GT's 4* RB. And by sniffing I mean of course seeing if he's amenable to bag men before early signing day.

Poof there's one 4*. It wasn't the one I was considering in the bag above either. A quick check of the recruiting landscape and I show two more 4* in the bag for Collins. It's possible he'll enter this weekend with a Top 20 class.

(12-10-2019 09:22 PM)nole Wrote:  Clemson is carrying 98% of the ACC's weight right now and for basically the last 3-4 years. Without a doubt.

Frankly, there isn't a close 2nd. The ACC is a one horse conference in football and that is where 80-85% of the revenue is.

Without Clemson football, the ACC is totally screwed. The ACC has gotten weaker instead of stronger. Mainly due to FSU's fall. But even when FSU was doing well, a two team conference isn't enough.

The ACC needs to see schools like Miami, Va Tech, and maybe even a UNC (they have $$$ and a brand) or UVA ($$$ and a brand) occasionally make a playoff or at least win a New Year 6 bowl.

But at this point,I think the ACC should have incentivized payout and pay Clemson extra for doing the extra work.

(12-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:01 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I was thinking with the 9th conference game there would be less challenging OOC games, not get rid of the games vs the FCS and G4s. So no more Bama vs Duke type of games. We have SEC rivalry games and ND, plus an occasionally good G4.

So we eliminate high profile games, College Gameday type games like Clemson has coming up against UGA, LSU, OU, etc for ACC Network games against Duke, Pitt, and UVA?

There's far less positives about a 9 conference game schedule than there is negatives.

Yes. You could also think high profile neutral site games vs UNC, VT and Miami. It’s not all just about Clemson and what they want though. I would also think those ACC high profile games would be well attended and watched by Clemson’s opponents as well.

The thing is, the ACC has done really bad against P5 competition, partially because of the lopsided matchups, but at least this way the ACC is guaranteed to go .500 against itself.