Original 6 + GT
Ex-Big East + FSU

(03-23-2020 07:58 AM)zibby Wrote:  Original 6 + GT
Ex-Big East + FSU

Probably the ONLY way, although you'd need to make a special provision that guarantees Clemson would play either Miami, FSU or VT every year.

I think if FSU could play GT or Clemson every year then this idea is fine and might be a little better on FSU’s end than the current divisions.

(03-23-2020 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 07:58 AM)zibby Wrote:  Original 6 + GT
Ex-Big East + FSU

Probably the ONLY way, although you'd need to make a special provision that guarantees Clemson would play either Miami, FSU or VT every year.

Who do you call the "original 6"?

If you think the ptb will go for VT being separated from North Carolina schools you don't know VT's history.

A handfull of years in the Big East don't make VT a "Big East" school. The ties are not on the ballfield, they are in the boardroom and in families.

(03-23-2020 03:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 07:58 AM)zibby Wrote:  Original 6 + GT
Ex-Big East + FSU

Probably the ONLY way, although you'd need to make a special provision that guarantees Clemson would play either Miami, FSU or VT every year.

Who do you call the "original 6"?

If you think the ptb will go for VT being separated from North Carolina schools you don't know VT's history.

A handfull of years in the Big East don't make VT a "Big East" school. The ties are not on the ballfield, they are in the boardroom and in families.

Well, the other problem with this (which I didn't recognize earlier) is we now have VT and UVA in different divisions.

This remains the lineup to beat:
OUTER: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, BC
INNER: UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

Athletic conference decisions should be made for athletic reasons. Making athletic conference decisions based on things from outside the purview of athletics is how we ended up adding two basketball schools to solve a football problem that surprisingly neither addition has done anything to fix.

Just because we've always made dumb decisions based upon the country club mentality of the inbreds in the Triad doesn't mean we need to continue to do so.

Who are these two basketball schools that were added?

(03-23-2020 07:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Who are these two basketball schools that were added?

I think he's referring to the last two ACC teams to beat Clemson in... football.

(03-23-2020 08:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 07:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Who are these two basketball schools that were added?

I think he's referring to the last two ACC teams to beat Clemson in... football.

Can’t be SU, clearly a LAX school.

(03-23-2020 10:20 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 08:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 07:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Who are these two basketball schools that were added?

I think he's referring to the last two ACC teams to beat Clemson in... football.

Can’t be SU, clearly a LAX school.

#1 Baby

This so called basketball school had 20k+ fans at the Camping World Bowl in Orlando and travels well to most ACC locations. They are in the middle of renovating the Dome.

(03-23-2020 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Athletic conference decisions should be made for athletic reasons. Making athletic conference decisions based on things from outside the purview of athletics is how we ended up adding two basketball schools to solve a football problem that surprisingly neither addition has done anything to fix.

Just because we've always made dumb decisions based upon the country club mentality of the inbreds in the Triad doesn't mean we need to continue to do so.

From an outsider, I've always viewed the ACC as a (men's) basketball conference first before a football conference. Clemson has won three national championships but Roy Williams has that by himself and that's not counting Dean Smith's two and Mike Krzyzewski has five. Now football might be more important but to most people but the sheer number of championships between Duke and North Carolina plus the rivalry between the two will tell you where their priorities will be. They also want more of a presence in the Northeast.

Adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh gave the ACC two states the ACC didn't have at the time, the two largest states by population in the Northeast. If it weren't for them, the only presence for the ACC in the Northeast now would be Boston College and they're lousy in both football and men's basketball. I think if Duke/North Carolina had their way UConn would be in the ACC but they compromised to the football schools (and BC) to have Louisville in, giving up arguably the best basketball program available (men's AND women's), inviting a school not in the Northeast, and inviting a school with by far the worst academics in the conference based on USN&WR rankings.

Back then, Clemson was in no position to make demands on the conference. Luckily for Clemson, Florida State was still at that time. If you had asked me when they took Louisville over Clemson, I would have been glad if the ACC traded Clemson for UConn. Now after winning two championships they can call the shots. But they are in the smallest state by population in the ACC, they are in a city so small it's named after the university, their academics is in the lower half of the ACC, and hey I congratulate Clemson's basketball for winning at Chapel Hill this year, 1 out of 60 isn't bad!

Like it or not, Clemson's the oddball in the ACC. If your girls wear dresses and heels to football games, you belong in the SEC, not the ACC. The ACC isn't stupid, they need Clemson to get money for their TV contracts. But culturally Clemson fits in better with the Auburn's and Alabama's than they do with the "country club mentality of the inbreds in the Triad". They're a football school in a basketball conference. If money wasn't an issue, Clemson for Kentucky would be the perfect switch where both schools and both conferences would be thrilled as Kentucky is a basketball school in a football conference.

(03-24-2020 07:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Athletic conference decisions should be made for athletic reasons. Making athletic conference decisions based on things from outside the purview of athletics is how we ended up adding two basketball schools to solve a football problem that surprisingly neither addition has done anything to fix.

Just because we've always made dumb decisions based upon the country club mentality of the inbreds in the Triad doesn't mean we need to continue to do so.

From an outsider, I've always viewed the ACC as a (men's) basketball conference first before a football conference. Clemson has won three national championships but Roy Williams has that by himself and that's not counting Dean Smith's two and Mike Krzyzewski has five. Now football might be more important but to most people but the sheer number of championships between Duke and North Carolina plus the rivalry between the two will tell you where their priorities will be. They also want more of a presence in the Northeast.

Adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh gave the ACC two states the ACC didn't have at the time, the two largest states by population in the Northeast. If it weren't for them, the only presence for the ACC in the Northeast now would be Boston College and they're lousy in both football and men's basketball. I think if Duke/North Carolina had their way UConn would be in the ACC but they compromised to the football schools (and BC) to have Louisville in, giving up arguably the best basketball program available (men's AND women's), inviting a school not in the Northeast, and inviting a school with by far the worst academics in the conference based on USN&WR rankings.

Back then, Clemson was in no position to make demands on the conference. Luckily for Clemson, Florida State was still at that time. If you had asked me when they took Louisville over Clemson, I would have been glad if the ACC traded Clemson for UConn. Now after winning two championships they can call the shots. But they are in the smallest state by population in the ACC, they are in a city so small it's named after the university, their academics is in the lower half of the ACC, and hey I congratulate Clemson's basketball for winning at Chapel Hill this year, 1 out of 60 isn't bad!

Like it or not, Clemson's the oddball in the ACC. If your girls wear dresses and heels to football games, you belong in the SEC, not the ACC. The ACC isn't stupid, they need Clemson to get money for their TV contracts. But culturally Clemson fits in better with the Auburn's and Alabama's than they do with the "country club mentality of the inbreds in the Triad". They're a football school in a basketball conference. If money wasn't an issue, Clemson for Kentucky would be the perfect switch where both schools and both conferences would be thrilled as Kentucky is a basketball school in a football conference.

Let's get one thing straight: just because the ACC has had more success in basketball does not mean that it's the priority sport at most ACC schools. Football is top priority at BC, Pitt, VT, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami and sometimes NC State. At worst, that's 8 out of 14 (57%).

There is an inordinate number of basketball-first schools in the ACC: Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville and sometimes NC State. I'll give Louisville a pass because even though basketball is #1, it's clear that football is taken very seriously there. I want to say the same is true of Syracuse and NC State - but with less impressive results on the gridiron.

The problem in the ACC is that for most of it's history it was dominated by the basketball-first schools. Of the 8 football-first programs, 4 of them were added this century (vs. only 2 basketball-first); it used to be 4-4 in a good year, and before FSU it was clearly 4-3 (or worse) in favor of hoops.

Kaplony's frustration is often overstated, but it stems from a LONG history of putting the 20% sport in front of the 80% sport.

(03-24-2020 07:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Let's get one thing straight: just because the ACC has had more success in basketball does not mean that it's the priority sport at most ACC schools. Football is top priority at BC, Pitt, VT, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami and sometimes NC State. At worst, that's 8 out of 14 (57%).

There is an inordinate number of basketball-first schools in the ACC: Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville and sometimes NC State. I'll give Louisville a pass because even though basketball is #1, it's clear that football is taken very seriously there. I want to say the same is true of Syracuse and NC State - but with less impressive results on the gridiron.

The problem in the ACC is that for most of it's history it was dominated by the basketball-first schools. Of the 8 football-first programs, 4 of them were added this century (vs. only 2 basketball-first); it used to be 4-4 in a good year, and before FSU it was clearly 4-3 (or worse) in favor of hoops.

Kaplony's frustration is often overstated, but it stems from a LONG history of putting the 20% sport in front of the 80% sport.

No doubt Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Miami are football schools first. NC State has won national championships in men's basketball although they are clearly in the shadow of North Carolina and Duke. They could probably emphasize football to get out of that shadow. Pittsburgh had done better in basketball recently under Jamie Dixon but fell apart under Kevin Stallings. Of course they had a great history and won a national championship a long time ago in football (I was really, really young). I don't know if Pitt's relevant in either sport now although maybe Jeff Capel will change things in hoops. Wake Forest? Again, they probably don't matter in either sport right now but ever heard of a guy named Tim Duncan? One good season in football isn't going to turn them into a football school. Georgia Tech's also too irrelevant in both sports to matter. I remember their Final Four appearances but they also split a national championship in football too. Boston College? Irrelevant in both. I most remember Doug Flutie.

Certainly many of the ACC schools care about football (you can't say UNC doesn't, look at last year's Clemson/UNC game). But even many of the "football" schools do care about basketball as shown by their past and/or recent success (Florida State won the regular season title the past season). The two worst ACC schools in men's basketball? Virginia Tech and Clemson. Since 2000, each has won three NCAA Tournament games (one of Clemson's was a First Four game). That's a decent season by North Carolina's/Duke's standards. Even Boston College has won six (three as an ACC member). Most of the other ACC schools are in large cities and states. Virginia is a large state but Blacksburg is in the middle of nowhere. No offense but like it or not I highly doubt Virginia Tech's in the ACC if it weren't for Mark Warner. Virginia Tech's not ACC level in men's basketball. They are in football but then again I don't know if "ACC football" means much outside of Clemson these days.

If you haven't figured out, I'm more of a basketball guy than a football guy. So if I insult you, it's probably more of a complement.

(03-24-2020 08:27 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 07:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Let's get one thing straight: just because the ACC has had more success in basketball does not mean that it's the priority sport at most ACC schools. Football is top priority at BC, Pitt, VT, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami and sometimes NC State. At worst, that's 8 out of 14 (57%).

There is an inordinate number of basketball-first schools in the ACC: Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville and sometimes NC State. I'll give Louisville a pass because even though basketball is #1, it's clear that football is taken very seriously there. I want to say the same is true of Syracuse and NC State - but with less impressive results on the gridiron.

The problem in the ACC is that for most of it's history it was dominated by the basketball-first schools. Of the 8 football-first programs, 4 of them were added this century (vs. only 2 basketball-first); it used to be 4-4 in a good year, and before FSU it was clearly 4-3 (or worse) in favor of hoops.

Kaplony's frustration is often overstated, but it stems from a LONG history of putting the 20% sport in front of the 80% sport.

No doubt Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Miami are football schools first. NC State has won national championships in men's basketball although they are clearly in the shadow of North Carolina and Duke. They could probably emphasize football to get out of that shadow. Pittsburgh had done better in basketball recently under Jamie Dixon but fell apart under Kevin Stallings. Of course they had a great history and won a national championship a long time ago in football (I was really, really young). I don't know if Pitt's relevant in either sport now although maybe Jeff Capel will change things in hoops. Wake Forest? Again, they probably don't matter in either sport right now but ever heard of a guy named Tim Duncan? One good season in football isn't going to turn them into a football school. Georgia Tech's also too irrelevant in both sports to matter. I remember their Final Four appearances but they also split a national championship in football too. Boston College? Irrelevant in both. I most remember Doug Flutie.

Certainly many of the ACC schools care about football (you can't say UNC doesn't, look at last year's Clemson/UNC game). But even many of the "football" schools do care about basketball as shown by their past and/or recent success (Florida State won the regular season title the past season). The two worst ACC schools in men's basketball? Virginia Tech and Clemson. Since 2000, each has won three NCAA Tournament games (one of Clemson's was a First Four game). That's a decent season by North Carolina's/Duke's standards. Even Boston College has won six (three as an ACC member). Most of the other ACC schools are in large cities and states. Virginia is a large state but Blacksburg is in the middle of nowhere. No offense but like it or not I highly doubt Virginia Tech's in the ACC if it weren't for Mark Warner. Virginia Tech's not ACC level in men's basketball. They are in football but then again I don't know if "ACC football" means much outside of Clemson these days.

If you haven't figured out, I'm more of a basketball guy than a football guy. So if I insult you, it's probably more of a complement.

One game means nothing. Let's ask a former college football player (Ironically this was from yesterday)


Former Clemson and NFL QB Charlie Whitehurst joined the "Out Of Bounds" show on Clemson's flagship radio station WCCP yesterday afternoon. One of the questions asked was why did he sign with Clemson instead of UNC.

I like this:
OUTER: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, BC
INNER: UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

Especially if GT vs VT is the annual crossover... Battle of the Techs or TECMO BOWL is a must for me...

I would like to see something like this one day... North vs South WITH A 9 GAME SCHEDULE AND AN ANNUAL CROSS RIVALRY
ACC North: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, UVA, VT, DUKE
ACC South: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, NC STATE, UNC

Permanent rival from the opposing divisions:
1. GT vs VT
2. Wake vs Duke
3. UNC vs Louisville
4. Miami vs Pitt
5. FSU vs Virginia
6. Clemson vs BC
7. NC State vs Syracuse

I love the idea of a 9 game schedule as it allows more ACC content and more ACC cross division games. Also once you add the SEC/ACC rivalary games and the ND games... It makes scheduling pretty easy, G5 or FCS...IMHO

(03-23-2020 03:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 03:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2020 07:58 AM)zibby Wrote:  Original 6 + GT
Ex-Big East + FSU

Probably the ONLY way, although you'd need to make a special provision that guarantees Clemson would play either Miami, FSU or VT every year.

Who do you call the "original 6"?

If you think the ptb will go for VT being separated from North Carolina schools you don't know VT's history.

A handfull of years in the Big East don't make VT a "Big East" school. The ties are not on the ballfield, they are in the boardroom and in families.

Well, the other problem with this (which I didn't recognize earlier) is we now have VT and UVA in different divisions.

This remains the lineup to beat:
OUTER: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, BC
INNER: UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

Atlantic: Miami, Florida State, Louisville, Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Coastal: UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, NC State, Wake Forest, GT

(03-24-2020 09:23 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  I would like to see something like this one day... North vs South WITH A 9 GAME SCHEDULE AND AN ANNUAL CROSS RIVALRY
ACC North: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, UVA, VT, DUKE
ACC South: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, NC STATE, UNC

Permanent rival from the opposing divisions:
1. GT vs VT
2. Wake vs Duke
3. UNC vs Louisville
4. Miami vs Pitt
5. FSU vs Virginia
6. Clemson vs BC
7. NC State vs Syracuse

I love the idea of a 9 game schedule as it allows more ACC content and more ACC cross division games. Also once you add the SEC/ACC rivalary games and the ND games... It makes scheduling pretty easy, G5 or FCS...IMHO

If you're having Duke as the North Carolina team in the North then UNC/Duke is the permanent rivalry, not Wake Forest/Duke.

I think many of you like the "Inner"/"Outer" idea I proposed with the Virginia and North Carolina schools together but the debate is who the seventh school is. Some like Georgia Tech, some like Louisville. The first Georgia Tech fan chimed in and wanted to be in the Outer division so that helps their case for that. Clemson likes GaT in their division and their voice is huge when it comes to football divisions.

I think the North/South idea could if UNC/Duke/NCSt can agree to WF in the North (WF can complain all they want, no one will care) and UVA/UNC will be the only permanent rival.

(03-24-2020 10:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 09:23 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  I would like to see something like this one day... North vs South WITH A 9 GAME SCHEDULE AND AN ANNUAL CROSS RIVALRY
ACC North: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, UVA, VT, DUKE
ACC South: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, NC STATE, UNC

Permanent rival from the opposing divisions:
1. GT vs VT
2. Wake vs Duke
3. UNC vs Louisville
4. Miami vs Pitt
5. FSU vs Virginia
6. Clemson vs BC
7. NC State vs Syracuse

I love the idea of a 9 game schedule as it allows more ACC content and more ACC cross division games. Also once you add the SEC/ACC rivalary games and the ND games... It makes scheduling pretty easy, G5 or FCS...IMHO

If you're having Duke as the North Carolina team in the North then UNC/Duke is the permanent rivalry, not Wake Forest/Duke.

I think many of you like the "Inner"/"Outer" idea I proposed with the Virginia and North Carolina schools together but the debate is who the seventh school is. Some like Georgia Tech, some like Louisville. The first Georgia Tech fan chimed in and wanted to be in the Outer division so that helps their case for that. Clemson likes GaT in their division and their voice is huge when it comes to football divisions.

I think the North/South idea could if UNC/Duke/NCSt can agree to WF in the North (WF can complain all they want, no one will care) and UVA/UNC will be the only permanent rival.

The best way to make North/South work is to put all 4 of UNC/Duke/UVA/VT in the North (that bumps Louisville to the South).

Regarding whether GT or Louisville goes into the Inner division: I don't think it should matter what the schools in NC think - they're being reunited - shut up and be happy with that! Stop being so greedy!!!

(03-24-2020 10:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 09:23 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  I would like to see something like this one day... North vs South WITH A 9 GAME SCHEDULE AND AN ANNUAL CROSS RIVALRY
ACC North: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, UVA, VT, DUKE
ACC South: Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, NC STATE, UNC

Permanent rival from the opposing divisions:
1. GT vs VT
2. Wake vs Duke
3. UNC vs Louisville
4. Miami vs Pitt
5. FSU vs Virginia
6. Clemson vs BC
7. NC State vs Syracuse

I love the idea of a 9 game schedule as it allows more ACC content and more ACC cross division games. Also once you add the SEC/ACC rivalary games and the ND games... It makes scheduling pretty easy, G5 or FCS...IMHO

If you're having Duke as the North Carolina team in the North then UNC/Duke is the permanent rivalry, not Wake Forest/Duke.

I think many of you like the "Inner"/"Outer" idea I proposed with the Virginia and North Carolina schools together but the debate is who the seventh school is. Some like Georgia Tech, some like Louisville. The first Georgia Tech fan chimed in and wanted to be in the Outer division so that helps their case for that. Clemson likes GaT in their division and their voice is huge when it comes to football divisions.

I think the North/South idea could if UNC/Duke/NCSt can agree to WF in the North (WF can complain all they want, no one will care) and UVA/UNC will be the only permanent rival.

The best way to make North/South work is to put all 4 of UNC/Duke/UVA/VT in the North (that bumps Louisville to the South).

Regarding whether GT or Louisville goes into the Inner division: I don't think it should matter what the schools in NC think - they're being reunited - shut up and be happy with that! Stop being so greedy!!!

Do the people in charge at GaTech prefer a division with Duke or Clemson? Either can be the sole permanent rival, just like the Big Ten does with Indiana and Purdue.

If we're looking at history, GaTech IS in a division with UNC, Duke, UVA, and VaTech. That's a majority right there.

(03-24-2020 10:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The best way to make North/South work is to put all 4 of UNC/Duke/UVA/VT in the North (that bumps Louisville to the South).

North: UNC/Duke/UVA/VT/BC/Syr/Pitt
South: Clem/FSU/Mia/GaT/NCSt/WF/Lville?

Would you have UNC/NCSt as a permanent rival? Would you need any others?