(02-26-2012 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:50 PM)Lucy Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 09:17 AM)Lucy Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 08:47 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  I find it curious that GT is playing multiple home-and-home dates with Tulane.

Wake is in the middle of like a 10 year home & home contract with Vandy. I can see inking a deal that will most likely be a win for Tech each year and does not involve high mileage travel.

The Wake Forest-Vanderbilt series was engineered by the ACC and SEC offices as a season ending game to balance out the other three season ending games the ACC and SEC played against one another (south carolina/Clemson, Ga/Ga. Tech, Fla. State/Fla).

Negative, ghostrider.

The athletic departments of the 2 schools negotiated the series themselves. Vandy had traditionally played Tennessee on Thanksgiving weekend but felt they were at a disadvantage with a horde of TN fans flooding their stadium on a weekend when students were gone for the holiday. In the mid 2000's, Tennessee agreed to flip their games with Vandy & Kentucky so they would play Vandy the weekend before T'giving and Kentucky T'giving weekend. Since the SEC did not want any team to have a BYE the week before the SEC Championship game and all of the SEC teams already had games set, Vandy was looking for an OOC opponent.

Wake traditionally did not like playing on Thanksgiving weekend for many of the same reasons. However Wake saw Vandy as an even match on the field and also saw that there would not be an issue with a ton of traveling fans taking away what home field advantage there can be on a holiday weekend, so the deal was finalized in Sept. 2006...without the push or involvement of either conference office.

Thank you for playing, XLance.

ghostrider yourself............FWIW information came from Grandover.

And mine came from the Wake Forest Athletic Dept which actually did the negotiations. You just keep believing the Swofford BS like a good little Tarheel...

Lucy, looks like you need to find a more reliable and accurate source.

(02-27-2012 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  Lucy, looks like you need to find a more reliable and accurate source.

Like anything associated with UNC-Cheat is more reliable & accurate?

(02-03-2012 04:13 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Carolina vs. South Carolina in Charlotte starting in '14?

The folks at InsideCarolina seem to have a scoop on this news.

Hope this is true. There's no reason why we shouldn't play them every year. I thought with the current ACC-SEC games that it would have been natural to play UNC-Tennessee every year to further the partnership, but this is great news for UNC's program if it comes to pass. Fedora's 2013 class is going to be great and with another year on top of that, I think we can challenge them.

Clemson has dropped future high profile OOC series with peer conference teams (Oklahoma State - Big XII and Ole Miss - SEC) because of the 9 game conference schedule.

Clemson drops series with Ole Miss, Oklahoma State

Quote:The first major reality of the ACC’s new nine-game football schedule hit home for Clemson Wednesday.

Clemson athletic director Terry Don Phillips confirmed that CU and Ole Miss had mutually agreed to terminate their nonconference home-and-home series, set for 2015-16. In addition, Phillips said that Clemson’s home-and-home with Oklahoma State, tentatively set for 2019-20, was also being cancelled.

It is a direct result of the schedule pressures applied by the ACC’s new football schedule, expected to go into place for 2013.

Quote:“We didn’t want to get out of that series,” Phillips said. “It’s a good series. We did save the Georgia series (in 2013-14), and that was extremely important. But given the realities of other universities at our level, we need to play seven home games.

“A home-and-home situation, we just can’t do it. I hate it. I’d like to keep the series. But reality demands in the long term that we keep seven home games every year, with the Georgia series being the exception.”

So future OOC slates after the two year series with UGAg that starts next year will look like this:

In-State FCS
Buy game against mid-major
South Carolina

Clemson Nation is overjoyed, as are our fellow conference mates with OOC SEC rivals.

ACC coaches with SEC rivals aligned against new 9-game schedule

Quote:And at the ACC Kickoff, its most out-spoken opponents got their say – Dabo Swinney amongst them, expounding upon comments he made in June when he addressed the Big 12 rumors.

Financial impact of fewer home games, both for the football program and the city of Clemson, is a factor to Swinney.

“You fill up Death Valley, there’s a lot of revenue coming in, and not just for our athletic department, for our community that thrives on gameday,” Swinney said. “So you have to make sure you have a certain amount of home games."

Joining him on anti-new conference schedule front is Florida State’s Jimbo Fisher and Georgia Tech’s Paul Johnson, who share in the same dilemma of an out of conference rivalry game.

“You must have seven home games,” Fisher said. “If you don’t have seven home games, you’re going to be in trouble.”

Quote:“The nine-game schedule is a very hairy deal,” Fisher said. “It’s not about not wanting to play somebody. It’s about getting a home game and it’s about getting a quality home game.”

I'll take the bait on this one...

If you was giving up a series against Nebraska, A&M, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Oregon, Oklahoma, Florida and Georgia etc I could understand. But Oklahoma State and Ole Miss are peers come on.

(08-04-2012 07:58 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I'll take the bait on this one...

If you was giving up a series against Nebraska, A&M, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Oregon, Oklahoma, Florida and Georgia etc I could understand.

Well, after the UGA series ends in 2014 we are essentially giving up any possible series like that. Like I said, our OOC will forever be 9 ACC games, Instate FCS, the MAC/Sun Belt/lower level CUSA buy game, and South Carolina.

But we get Duke and UVA more often, so I guess it balances out.

Quote:But Oklahoma State and Ole Miss are peers come on.

Both of those games would have been sellouts, and Oklahoma State is very much a peer school to Clemson, and what they have accomplished on the football field the past few years has blown away both of the football superpowers we are bringing in next season.

When the series with Ole Miss was signed they were in the midst of a Cotton Bowl run. Based on what they have done when coming to Columbia they would have brought more visiting fans to Clemson than any ACC school not named FSU, GT, or VT.


That said, with the crippling effect the 9 game schedule is going to have on the SOS for Clemson and FSU, the rest of the conference best step their game up and fast because if as as been suggested on here time and time and time again by you cheerleaders it is our responsibility and our responsibility alone to carry the conference in football then y'all have to take responsibility to make sure the damage done to our SOS by the extra conference game versus a high profile OOC game is minimal. If not we will not only have to run the table, we will have to have a bunch of help to ever hope to make a top 4 playoff.

Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

(08-04-2012 09:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

I guess you didn't realize that winning the conference once in 20 years gives Clemson rights to look down on the rest of the conference.

(08-04-2012 09:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

(08-04-2012 10:22 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

I guess you didn't realize that winning the conference once in 20 years gives Clemson rights to look down on the rest of the conference.

You two morons crack me up.


Once again I'll say this, so you two may want to write it down and tape it to your monitor since you seem to have the memory of a house plant, I have never, ever shied away from the fact that we didn't do our part under Hatfield, and that under West and especially under the regime of former AD Bobby Robinson we dug ourselves a whale of a hole for our program to get out of. We brought in Tommy Bowden and he corrected a lot of the problems....but we kept him too long. We've fixed that and the results speak for themselves.....Dabo's been the true head coach for 3 years and we've won an ACC Title and played for another in that time. We are restocking the roster with talent like you wouldn't believe, our facilities will soon be the best on the conference, and we have done it clean. No NCAA trouble, when our players get in trouble off the field they are dealt with regardless of star status (see the Sammy Watkins two game suspension), and we graduate players without sketchy classes like the supposed academic beacons of this conference.

Yes, we stepped on our crank in the Orange Bowl.....but unlike some schools around here we have never lost to a FCS team, and we are attractive enough to bowls to where we get selected to a better bowl than our record rather than being kicked to the same garbage bowl two years in a row and counting.

We are the smallest public school, and smaller in enrollment than every other public school except GT and UVA ( by a fairly large margin(10k or more), and have fewer alumni yet out draw everybody but Florida State for even our worst attended games by a leaps and bounds. We have invested millions upon millions of dollar into our football program the past few years in order to compete at a national level, yet the conference cuts our feet out from underneath us with a garbage TV payout and hurting our future SOS with games against sub-par conference teams who are typically just playing out the string until hoops starts. Everything we have ever accomplished in football was in spite of, not because of this joke of a conference.

(08-06-2012 09:15 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

(08-04-2012 10:22 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 09:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-04-2012 08:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Obviously Clemson should join the B12 because their 9 conference game allow for more home games than the ACC's 9 conference games do.

#1 The Big XII went to 9 games to maintain inventory when they dropped from 12 teams to 10. No guarantee that if they expanded to 12 or beyond that they would maintain the 9th conference game, but keep propping up that straw man....it's what you do best.

#2 SOS isn't anywhere near as big of a deal for the Big XII as it is for the ACC. The Big XII doesn't have a battleship anchor that doesn't even attempt to try like the ACC, and whereas they added two top of their conference teams we added two middle of the road or worse teams. When Texas struggled in the Big XII teams like OSU and Baylor stepped up their game. When FSU and Miami struggled in the ACC the schools in our conference said "It's your fault we are in this mess. When does basketball practice start?"

I don't know how you can make this comment with a straight face. Since Clemson clearly didn't step up their game any better than any of the other ACC schools, then Clemson fans have to look in the mirror themselves before they decide to cast stones at their conference mates. Why didn't mighty Clemson decide to step up their game to match what Virginia Tech has done ever since they joined the ACC? I hate to heap praise upon another school like that, but your ramblings are little more than hot air.

The only thing I see here is that you love to talk a big game. Too bad your school can't back up your words. I know that Pitt had a significant fall from grace and that it hasn't done much to help its former conference. Some day I hope that you develop some clarity so that you can clearly see that Clemson has not done much to make the ACC better in FB any more than Pitt has for the BE. Then maybe we can have constructive conversations moving forward instead of hearing the hot gas spewing from your orifices...

I guess you didn't realize that winning the conference once in 20 years gives Clemson rights to look down on the rest of the conference.

You two morons crack me up.


Once again I'll say this, so you two may want to write it down and tape it to your monitor since you seem to have the memory of a house plant, I have never, ever shied away from the fact that we didn't do our part under Hatfield, and that under West and especially under the regime of former AD Bobby Robinson we dug ourselves a whale of a hole for our program to get out of. We brought in Tommy Bowden and he corrected a lot of the problems....but we kept him too long. We've fixed that and the results speak for themselves.....Dabo's been the true head coach for 3 years and we've won an ACC Title and played for another in that time. We are restocking the roster with talent like you wouldn't believe, our facilities will soon be the best on the conference, and we have done it clean. No NCAA trouble, when our players get in trouble off the field they are dealt with regardless of star status (see the Sammy Watkins two game suspension), and we graduate players without sketchy classes like the supposed academic beacons of this conference.

Yes, we stepped on our crank in the Orange Bowl.....but unlike some schools around here we have never lost to a FCS team, and we are attractive enough to bowls to where we get selected to a better bowl than our record rather than being kicked to the same garbage bowl two years in a row and counting.

We are the smallest public school, and smaller in enrollment than every other public school except GT and UVA ( by a fairly large margin(10k or more), and have fewer alumni yet out draw everybody but Florida State for even our worst attended games by a leaps and bounds. We have invested millions upon millions of dollar into our football program the past few years in order to compete at a national level, yet the conference cuts our feet out from underneath us with a garbage TV payout and hurting our future SOS with games against sub-par conference teams who are typically just playing out the string until hoops starts. Everything we have ever accomplished in football was in spite of, not because of this joke of a conference.

The reason why you are being called out by so many posters on here is because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I think your biggest gripe is the TV contract. You blame Swofford for a poor TV deal; however, Swofford is at the mercy of how well the ACC performs on the field and moves the needle. In its own footprint, the ACC probably does fine ratings wise, but it could be better if the schools are winning games OOC and in the post season. It amazes me that you have this fundamental disconnect, because you turn the cause and effect relationship completely on its head.

catdaddy
Cause: Swofford and the ACC failed to get us a great TV deal. Effect: Clemson can't compete OOC against SEC schools or in the post season.

Reality
Cause: Clemson, along with other ACC schools, failed to compete effectively in OOC matchups and in the post season. Effect: Swofford and the ACC couldn't land as good of a TV deal as they would have liked.

I'm not trying to slam the ACC and I'm very glad that Pitt and Syracuse are a part of the conference. However, the ACC will get paid based upon how well the schools have been performing on the field and in the ratings dept. Truthfully, the ACC's ratings are still solid but could be significantly better if the ACC schools would have performed better by winning the bowls and the OOC matchups. Better performances lead to better ratings which lead to better TV deals. Since you clearly agree that Clemson did not do its part during the last TV negotiations by giving Swofford the ammo to hammer out a better TV deal, then there is no reason for you to continually complain about the ACC TV payouts. It makes you look ridiculous

VT is playing Richmond in 2021.

They are also in the process of trying to ink a home/home series for 18/19 and 20/21 with schools that include Michigan, Auburn, and Arkansas. VT is focusing on SEC and B10 teams due to proximity. This is all according to Jim Weaver on Tech Talk Live on 8/20.

EDIT:

Here is an article with more possible schools:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...0070.story

Minnesota, Illinois, and Penn State are also being looked at.

(08-21-2012 03:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  VT is playing Richmond in 2021.

They are also in the process of trying to ink a home/home series for 18/19 and 20/21 with schools that include Michigan, Auburn, and Arkansas. VT is focusing on SEC and B10 teams due to proximity. This is all according to Jim Weaver on Tech Talk Live on 8/20.

EDIT:

Here is an article with more possible schools:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...0070.story

Minnesota, Illinois, and Penn State are also being looked at.

Hopefully Minnesota and Illinois are being looked at for basketball only.

(08-21-2012 03:44 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  VT is playing Richmond in 2021.

They are also in the process of trying to ink a home/home series for 18/19 and 20/21 with schools that include Michigan, Auburn, and Arkansas. VT is focusing on SEC and B10 teams due to proximity. This is all according to Jim Weaver on Tech Talk Live on 8/20.

EDIT:

Here is an article with more possible schools:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...0070.story

Minnesota, Illinois, and Penn State are also being looked at.

Hopefully Minnesota and Illinois are being looked at for basketball only.

On the plus side, Minnesota appears to be booked up.

(08-21-2012 03:49 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:44 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  VT is playing Richmond in 2021.

They are also in the process of trying to ink a home/home series for 18/19 and 20/21 with schools that include Michigan, Auburn, and Arkansas. VT is focusing on SEC and B10 teams due to proximity. This is all according to Jim Weaver on Tech Talk Live on 8/20.

EDIT:

Here is an article with more possible schools:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...0070.story

Minnesota, Illinois, and Penn State are also being looked at.

Hopefully Minnesota and Illinois are being looked at for basketball only.

On the plus side, Minnesota appears to be booked up.

That would be a great lineup though. Michigan Auburn Arkansas and Penn State mixed in with our existing Wisconsin and Ohio State games in 2014-2017.

I was sure Weaver was going to let the Next AD fill in our upcoming schedules but I guess it's getting too close to wait. They fill out schedules so far in advance now that if you don't fill them in 5 years early you won't be able to get a good team.

Edit: as a footnote, I hope Auburn doesn't cancel again the Spring before game time and leave us hanging without a major opponent to play. Like they did in 2004 and 2005. Which left them without a strong OOC and were left out of the MNC game.

(08-21-2012 03:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:49 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:44 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 03:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  VT is playing Richmond in 2021.

They are also in the process of trying to ink a home/home series for 18/19 and 20/21 with schools that include Michigan, Auburn, and Arkansas. VT is focusing on SEC and B10 teams due to proximity. This is all according to Jim Weaver on Tech Talk Live on 8/20.

EDIT:

Here is an article with more possible schools:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...0070.story

Minnesota, Illinois, and Penn State are also being looked at.

Hopefully Minnesota and Illinois are being looked at for basketball only.

On the plus side, Minnesota appears to be booked up.

That would be a great lineup though. Michigan Auburn Arkansas and Penn State mixed in with our existing Wisconsin and Ohio State games in 2014-2017.

I was sure Weaver was going to let the Next AD fill in our upcoming schedules but I guess it's getting too close to wait. They fill out schedules so far in advance now that if you don't fill them in 5 years in advance that you won't be able to get a good team.

I would prefer Michigan and Arkansas. Auburn has already backed out on us before and I wasn't impressed with their fans at the Sugar Bowl. I don't think we should support Penn State in their time of need when they never wanted to play us before their fall.

Mostly, I just want to see VT play big-name teams that the Hokies can beat!

Do you think Frank Beamer might want to go to 2 major conference opponents OOC every year because of the SOS component of the the playoff?

I was reading this article from July 27th and it says that our current philosophy of 1 FCS, 1 mid-major and 1 major opponent many need to be re-visited.
"We kind of had our formula in the past. But I think we need to kind of revisit that." Frank Beamer
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/vtfootball/wb/312061

Michigan, Penn State, Auburn, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Illinois are a lot of schools to be talking to considering we're almost booked up till 2017.

Edit : I was thinking something like:
2013 vs. Alabama in Atlanta
2014 @Ohio State
2015 vs. Ohio State
2016 vs. Wisconsin
2017 vs. Auburn @Wisconsin
2018 vs. Michigan @Auburn
2019 vs. Minnesota @Michigan
2020 vs. Arkansas @Minnesota
2021 vs. Illinois @Arkansas
2022 vs. TBD @Illinois