Bottomline: 9 game conference schedules for all the P5 conferences look likely.

FSU/Clemson fans we get it...your teams and fans are so awesome and too good to play conference scrubs but sadly you'll have to adapt. It is the cross you'll have to bear.

I would plan the out years with whatever 3 game OOC strategy you deem best. Keep an open hole in the out years for a guarantee game if the 9 game conference schedule doesn't happen.

(10-17-2013 12:51 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 12:31 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  As long as the top teams continue to perform well, the ACC shouldn't have an issue with SOS. Adding Louisville to replace Maryland is a big improvement. 5 games against Notre Dame is a big improvement. Having a decent core of Pitt, GT, UNC, NCSU, BC, Syracuse, UVA (really only need 3-4 of these to be decent on any given year) is good enough. SOS would be stronger than the B1G and Big 12 already. There will be 4 slots available. They're all not going to the SEC so the ACC should be fine as long as the top performs well.

Most B1G schools will be dropping a G5 or FCS school to make room for a 9th conference game, so they will definitely be improving relative to the ACC.

I don't think the B1G is strong enough for that to matter. Is there that much difference between playing Ball State and Indiana?

(10-17-2013 07:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bottomline: 9 game conference schedules for all the P5 conferences look likely.

FSU/Clemson fans we get it...your teams and fans are so awesome and too good to play conference scrubs but sadly you'll have to adapt. It is the cross you'll have to bear.

I would plan the out years with whatever 3 game OOC strategy you deem best. Keep an open hole in the out years for a guarantee game if the 9 game conference schedule doesn't happen.

Falling back on the hyperbole to belittle the opposition. Sadly, we will have to adapt. NICE. The response means basically, tough sh@t. The 3 games OOC will be completely out of our hands, except to choose the one mid-major we pay to come take a beating. Your teams will not have that problem, so it is easy to not budge. Bring up realigning the divisions where more teams have to "adapt" and suddenly its not the topic of discussion.

I know this is just a message board, and I hope like Hell we stay at 8 games. Simply put, your ADs have already shown that they will band together and vote over the objections of the teams that will be hurt with the schedule change. But, somehow, we are the "problem" because of wanting to stay more in charge of our own schedule.

Mark, I read and have posted a few times on your team's free board (syracusefan), and one thread that ties in here deals with scheduling philosophy. Lou C was basically saying that Syracuse is scheduling too hard in OOC games. Your board was pretty much in mass disagreement because of wanting those big games, almost demanding them. It is the same with us, except it will stop it for us. That is why it is a hot-button topic.

As far as Clemson being above playing scrubs, don't be butthurt. I recognize that people wanting the extra game want it to either a) play some of their old rivals more often, or b) get extra games in the state of Florida. Probably the only teams that may want extra games against us might be some of the original members that are in the coastal.

(10-17-2013 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Irish, I am going to simply stop arguing with you on this. Let's move on from whether it's a good or bad idea. Agreed?

For the purposes of discussion, let's talk about options that if it were inevitable situation, just for the purposes of discussion here. What would you like to see? Did you see my suggestion above? Post # 159? What do you think about that?

I will move on too, with the one last comment. You still are ignoring my posted past schedules proving your statements wrong. That's off my chest now.

As for what I would like to see, it would be either no change, or if the NCAA would increase the season to 13 games. The 11 game schedule was increased to 12 to encourage more meaningful OOC scheduling. They may need to do it again since conferences are moving toward eating that extra game (8 to 9 game schedules). Everyone wins in that scenario. People favoring 9 conference games are satisfied. Clemson would still have needed flexibility, and everyone gets to watch their team one extra time.

(10-17-2013 09:08 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  I will move on too, with the one last comment. You still are ignoring my posted past schedules proving your statements wrong. That's off my chest now..

Now I see I refrained. But let's be clear. I did not ignore it. You listed the schedule. You have an average of a marquee game every other year. Exactly as often as an extra ACC game. The problem is: that is what I said to you seven times and argued against. This is why it annoyed me to no end that you keep arguing the point, saying "I am ignoring it" when it is you his ignored the same point I made over, and over, and over, and over.

Also the schedule was increased to 12 at the same time teams were allowed to count an FCS team towards bowl eligibility every season as opposed to every four seasons. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they were trying to increase home games, not marque OOC games.

So what I gather is that the Clemson AD, Assistant AD in charge of football scheduling, head coach, and fans don't know what is good for Clemson and what is going to happen with scheduling if the 9th game is foisted upon us again by the schools that have done nothing to further the football brand of this conference but a random message board poster from a school who has never shared a conference or even played a game against us does.

WTF ever.

Whoever at Clemson who was part and parcel to agreeing with the grant of rights and leaving us absolutely no leverage whatsoever should be stoned by a crowd on Bowman Field.

(10-17-2013 09:01 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 07:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bottomline: 9 game conference schedules for all the P5 conferences look likely.

FSU/Clemson fans we get it...your teams and fans are so awesome and too good to play conference scrubs but sadly you'll have to adapt. It is the cross you'll have to bear.

I would plan the out years with whatever 3 game OOC strategy you deem best. Keep an open hole in the out years for a guarantee game if the 9 game conference schedule doesn't happen.

Falling back on the hyperbole to belittle the opposition. Sadly, we will have to adapt. NICE. The response means basically, tough sh@t. The 3 games OOC will be completely out of our hands, except to choose the one mid-major we pay to come take a beating. Your teams will not have that problem, so it is easy to not budge. Bring up realigning the divisions where more teams have to "adapt" and suddenly its not the topic of discussion.

I know this is just a message board, and I hope like Hell we stay at 8 games. Simply put, your ADs have already shown that they will band together and vote over the objections of the teams that will be hurt with the schedule change. But, somehow, we are the "problem" because of wanting to stay more in charge of our own schedule.

Mark, I read and have posted a few times on your team's free board (syracusefan), and one thread that ties in here deals with scheduling philosophy. Lou C was basically saying that Syracuse is scheduling too hard in OOC games. Your board was pretty much in mass disagreement because of wanting those big games, almost demanding them. It is the same with us, except it will stop it for us. That is why it is a hot-button topic.

As far as Clemson being above playing scrubs, don't be butthurt. I recognize that people wanting the extra game want it to either a) play some of their old rivals more often, or b) get extra games in the state of Florida. Probably the only teams that may want extra games against us might be some of the original members that are in the coastal.

I do not think it is inevitable to have a 9 game schedule. Its all dependent on how much $$$ comes from ESPN or the ACC TV Network.
Since the ACC TV Network is a long way off I can see an 8 game schedule for a long time. Personally, I would prefer and 8 game schedule. It provides more variety and less of the same teams over and over.
The one thing that 9 games will bring will be a lot of extra $$$ for everyone or the teams won't vote for it.

(10-18-2013 12:03 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 09:01 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 07:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bottomline: 9 game conference schedules for all the P5 conferences look likely.

FSU/Clemson fans we get it...your teams and fans are so awesome and too good to play conference scrubs but sadly you'll have to adapt. It is the cross you'll have to bear.

I would plan the out years with whatever 3 game OOC strategy you deem best. Keep an open hole in the out years for a guarantee game if the 9 game conference schedule doesn't happen.

Falling back on the hyperbole to belittle the opposition. Sadly, we will have to adapt. NICE. The response means basically, tough sh@t. The 3 games OOC will be completely out of our hands, except to choose the one mid-major we pay to come take a beating. Your teams will not have that problem, so it is easy to not budge. Bring up realigning the divisions where more teams have to "adapt" and suddenly its not the topic of discussion.

I know this is just a message board, and I hope like Hell we stay at 8 games. Simply put, your ADs have already shown that they will band together and vote over the objections of the teams that will be hurt with the schedule change. But, somehow, we are the "problem" because of wanting to stay more in charge of our own schedule.

Mark, I read and have posted a few times on your team's free board (syracusefan), and one thread that ties in here deals with scheduling philosophy. Lou C was basically saying that Syracuse is scheduling too hard in OOC games. Your board was pretty much in mass disagreement because of wanting those big games, almost demanding them. It is the same with us, except it will stop it for us. That is why it is a hot-button topic.

As far as Clemson being above playing scrubs, don't be butthurt. I recognize that people wanting the extra game want it to either a) play some of their old rivals more often, or b) get extra games in the state of Florida. Probably the only teams that may want extra games against us might be some of the original members that are in the coastal.

I do not think it is inevitable to have a 9 game schedule. Its all dependent on how much $$$ comes from ESPN or the ACC TV Network.
Since the ACC TV Network is a long way off I can see an 8 game schedule for a long time. Personally, I would prefer and 8 game schedule. It provides more variety and less of the same teams over and over.
The one thing that 9 games will bring will be a lot of extra $$$ for everyone or the teams won't vote for it.

It wasn't going to bring a lot of extra $$$ the last time it was crammed down our throats and the basketball schools still voted it in. It was only after they realized they too were going to be constricted with the addition of the game against the parasite that they dropped the 9th game the first time.

The numbers don't lie...if all the other P5 conferences go to 9 conference games the ACC will have to also. Supply and Demand.

Irish Red: I wasn't throwing that at you exclusively but I've been reading this board since realignment flared up and many FSU/Clemson fans have this idea they are too good for the ACC. Bottomline: Both teams should be happy because you have a much easier path to the playoffs than the SEC teams.

Plus you guys get to play in the greatest basketball conference in the land. Your school get TV exposure throughout the winter. The SEC sucks in hoops once you get past UK and Florida.

As for Cuse Sceduling Philopsophy. We continued to overschedule in the Big East due to our sudden drop in league status after the departure of Miami/VT/BC. Many of the board posters (not all) realize no more than one quality elite/near elite OOC opponent is needed now. We need to schedule 2 or 3 easier games OOC to help build a bowl eligible record.

(10-18-2013 12:03 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  So what I gather is that the Clemson AD, Assistant AD in charge of football scheduling, head coach, and fans don't know what is good for Clemson and what is going to happen with scheduling if the 9th game is foisted upon us again by the schools that have done nothing to further the football brand of this conference but a random message board poster from a school who has never shared a conference or even played a game against us does.

WTF ever.

Whoever at Clemson who was part and parcel to agreeing with the grant of rights and leaving us absolutely no leverage whatsoever should be stoned by a crowd on Bowman Field.

So you can go where? The SEC doesn't want you no matter how much you want them...

(10-18-2013 12:03 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  So what I gather is that the Clemson AD, Assistant AD in charge of football scheduling, head coach, and fans don't know what is good for Clemson and what is going to happen with scheduling if the 9th game is foisted upon us again by the schools that have done nothing to further the football brand of this conference but a random message board poster from a school who has never shared a conference or even played a game against us does.

WTF ever.

Actually I never said any of that. I asked the same question, now eight times, and of all of the ones of you complained, NONE have addressed it. It goes DIRECTLY to the core of your complaint, and you all refuse to answer it because the answer kills your argument.

(10-17-2013 11:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 09:08 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  I will move on too, with the one last comment. You still are ignoring my posted past schedules proving your statements wrong. That's off my chest now..

Now I see I refrained. But let's be clear. I did not ignore it. You listed the schedule. You have an average of a marquee game every other year. Exactly as often as an extra ACC game. The problem is: that is what I said to you seven times and argued against. This is why it annoyed me to no end that you keep arguing the point, saying "I am ignoring it" when it is you his ignored the same point I made over, and over, and over, and over.

Also the schedule was increased to 12 at the same time teams were allowed to count an FCS team towards bowl eligibility every season as opposed to every four seasons. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they were trying to increase home games, not marque OOC games.

I may understand the disconnect in this conversation. I think you are looking at the schedules I listed and focusing in on ONLY home OOC marquee matchups. That has never been my stance. My stance is the ability to play the game at all. When the marquee matchup is an away game, that is when the restriction of a 9th conference game kills our ability to maintain 7 home games. I do discount the extra ACC game as a marquee game because I am focused on the idea of playing different power teams outside of teams we would see anyway.

(10-18-2013 09:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The numbers don't lie...if all the other P5 conferences go to 9 conference games the ACC will have to also. Supply and Demand.

Irish Red: I wasn't throwing that at you exclusively but I've been reading this board since realignment flared up and many FSU/Clemson fans have this idea they are too good for the ACC. Bottomline: Both teams should be happy because you have a much easier path to the playoffs than the SEC teams.

Plus you guys get to play in the greatest basketball conference in the land. Your school get TV exposure throughout the winter. The SEC sucks in hoops once you get past UK and Florida.

As for Cuse Sceduling Philopsophy. We continued to overschedule in the Big East due to our sudden drop in league status after the departure of Miami/VT/BC. Many of the board posters (not all) realize no more than one quality elite/near elite OOC opponent is needed now. We need to schedule 2 or 3 easier games OOC to help build a bowl eligible record.

Mark, my reply was kinda harsh too. I apologize for the tone in the post. Let me see if I can better illustrate my thoughts in relation to your views.

First, you have to understand that at Clemson, basketball is pretty much viewed as something we have to play because the conference demands it. Basketball is a non-issue to Clemson fans. I would be for completely canning the program and directing ALL of the money straight into the football program. I live 10 minutes from campus, have been a season-ticket holder in the lower decks for 10 years, and have missed only 1 home football game.

I have never been to, and never plan to attend, a single Clemson basketball game. It simply holds no interest for me. In my view, the fact that this conference continues to make decision based on basketball first is still a problem. Clemson also has disdain for the conference because of past issues that I will let lie for the moment. So from that standpoint, you are correct in your insight that we don't want to have any more to do with a conference that has stabbed us in the back and holds onto basketball too much when football drives the bus.

Now, with that history and viewpoint in mind, the 9 game conference talk, for Clemson fans, is viewed as the rest of the conference shafting us once again for their own benefit. Basically, we view it as teams that do not invest in their football programs leeching off of the programs that do. Full disclosure, Clemson does the exact same thing in basketball, but it is not nearly as monetarily damaging. We see a lot of the programs leeching off of the money-train of football by doing the minimum in investments, while lavishing their basketball programs with ungodly money, when basketball counts for about 20 percent of conference money.

We will never be able to approach what Syracuse, Louisville, or Pitt have going on in basketball. I know that, and most sane Clemson fans know that. This last expansion was really about basketball. Syracuse and Pitt have football tradition, and I am not about to denigrate it. However, Duke's coach K actually said that this time (as opposed to when Miami, VT, and BC joined) it was about basketball, and he said something to the effect of, "as it should be." Louisville has recent football success, but basically Florida State, Clemson, and a couple others secretly raised holy hell when it looked like Connecticut was getting the invite. Louisville was the best option to bring recently relevant football into the conference.

I just do not trust the old guard of the ACC, and the new teams seem to be going in lock-step with them in regard to the 9th game. I am fine with playing any conference team within the 8 game schedule. I don't want nine games unless a 13 game schedule is approved by the NCAA.

To your other point, The ACC is an easier path, no question about that. However, is it not a great experience when the Dome is sold out and a highly-ranked semi-unknown team comes to play? While it may be harder to win, is that not the game your fans talk about for the rest of the year? That is what we do not want to lose.

Finally, one thing that you may have hit on that has some truth to it is that SEEMS that Clemson thinks they are too good to play in the ACC. Clemson is a founding member of the conference. We are once again nationally relevant. Think about how we became Nationally relevant. We have won 3 of our last 4 against the top SEC teams dating back to the beginning of last season. The ACC does not help teams become nationally relevant. OOC wins against power teams is what is required. When teams beat each other up in the ACC, it is considered mediocre football. When teams in the SEC beat up on each other, it is considered power football. The only way to break that perception is to schedule and win against those teams.

To sum up, I, as a fan of Clemson, am against the 9th game because I believe we need the flexibility to schedule OOC to beef up strength of schedule (without losing 7 home games). I also have some problem with what I perceive as basketball-first schools leeching off of football money without upgrading facilities, or paying top dollar for coaching staffs in football, instead plowing that money into basketball, a sport worth 20 percent of the conference contract. Now, those schools are wanting even more out of the football side of the equation. It stinks.

The tone of Clemson/FSU fans you write about is simply frustration. The decisions made, or being talked about, have implications spanning decades. Many of the people talking about a BIG 12 jump were just completely frustrated with this conference. I was glad that we stayed, but the 9-game slate is a back-breaker. It is no surprise that some lashing out is occurring.

Thanks for the reply...bottomline if the other 4 conferences go to 9 games...the ACC must also.

We will hurt ourselves by having to schedule too many G5/1AA schools to fill the slots.

(10-18-2013 12:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 12:03 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 09:01 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 07:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bottomline: 9 game conference schedules for all the P5 conferences look likely.

FSU/Clemson fans we get it...your teams and fans are so awesome and too good to play conference scrubs but sadly you'll have to adapt. It is the cross you'll have to bear.

I would plan the out years with whatever 3 game OOC strategy you deem best. Keep an open hole in the out years for a guarantee game if the 9 game conference schedule doesn't happen.

Falling back on the hyperbole to belittle the opposition. Sadly, we will have to adapt. NICE. The response means basically, tough sh@t. The 3 games OOC will be completely out of our hands, except to choose the one mid-major we pay to come take a beating. Your teams will not have that problem, so it is easy to not budge. Bring up realigning the divisions where more teams have to "adapt" and suddenly its not the topic of discussion.

I know this is just a message board, and I hope like Hell we stay at 8 games. Simply put, your ADs have already shown that they will band together and vote over the objections of the teams that will be hurt with the schedule change. But, somehow, we are the "problem" because of wanting to stay more in charge of our own schedule.

Mark, I read and have posted a few times on your team's free board (syracusefan), and one thread that ties in here deals with scheduling philosophy. Lou C was basically saying that Syracuse is scheduling too hard in OOC games. Your board was pretty much in mass disagreement because of wanting those big games, almost demanding them. It is the same with us, except it will stop it for us. That is why it is a hot-button topic.

As far as Clemson being above playing scrubs, don't be butthurt. I recognize that people wanting the extra game want it to either a) play some of their old rivals more often, or b) get extra games in the state of Florida. Probably the only teams that may want extra games against us might be some of the original members that are in the coastal.

I do not think it is inevitable to have a 9 game schedule. Its all dependent on how much $$$ comes from ESPN or the ACC TV Network.
Since the ACC TV Network is a long way off I can see an 8 game schedule for a long time. Personally, I would prefer and 8 game schedule. It provides more variety and less of the same teams over and over.
The one thing that 9 games will bring will be a lot of extra $$$ for everyone or the teams won't vote for it.

It wasn't going to bring a lot of extra $$$ the last time it was crammed down our throats and the basketball schools still voted it in. It was only after they realized they too were going to be constricted with the addition of the game against the parasite that they dropped the 9th game the first time.

Very true, I hope they have learned their lesson. There is no reason to give up a 9th game unless there is plenty of $$$$. At least that is my opinion. This is the rationale that the SEC is using to have their 9th game as it is for their SEC network and they are going to make a lot of $$$ for doing it. By the way as a new member of the conference I am not fully aware of the politics of the ACC. It appears that the North Carolina schools run the show, would that be an accurate assessment?
Syracuse is both a basketball school and a football school. We are investing in football by building a $17 million indoor football complex.
I suspect we will be an outsider but who knows since our AD is a big networker.

(10-19-2013 09:44 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 09:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The numbers don't lie...if all the other P5 conferences go to 9 conference games the ACC will have to also. Supply and Demand.

Irish Red: I wasn't throwing that at you exclusively but I've been reading this board since realignment flared up and many FSU/Clemson fans have this idea they are too good for the ACC. Bottomline: Both teams should be happy because you have a much easier path to the playoffs than the SEC teams.

Plus you guys get to play in the greatest basketball conference in the land. Your school get TV exposure throughout the winter. The SEC sucks in hoops once you get past UK and Florida.

As for Cuse Sceduling Philopsophy. We continued to overschedule in the Big East due to our sudden drop in league status after the departure of Miami/VT/BC. Many of the board posters (not all) realize no more than one quality elite/near elite OOC opponent is needed now. We need to schedule 2 or 3 easier games OOC to help build a bowl eligible record.

Mark, my reply was kinda harsh too. I apologize for the tone in the post. Let me see if I can better illustrate my thoughts in relation to your views.

First, you have to understand that at Clemson, basketball is pretty much viewed as something we have to play because the conference demands it. Basketball is a non-issue to Clemson fans. I would be for completely canning the program and directing ALL of the money straight into the football program. I live 10 minutes from campus, have been a season-ticket holder in the lower decks for 10 years, and have missed only 1 home football game.

I have never been to, and never plan to attend, a single Clemson basketball game. It simply holds no interest for me. In my view, the fact that this conference continues to make decision based on basketball first is still a problem. Clemson also has disdain for the conference because of past issues that I will let lie for the moment. So from that standpoint, you are correct in your insight that we don't want to have any more to do with a conference that has stabbed us in the back and holds onto basketball too much when football drives the bus.

Now, with that history and viewpoint in mind, the 9 game conference talk, for Clemson fans, is viewed as the rest of the conference shafting us once again for their own benefit. Basically, we view it as teams that do not invest in their football programs leeching off of the programs that do. Full disclosure, Clemson does the exact same thing in basketball, but it is not nearly as monetarily damaging. We see a lot of the programs leeching off of the money-train of football by doing the minimum in investments, while lavishing their basketball programs with ungodly money, when basketball counts for about 20 percent of conference money.

We will never be able to approach what Syracuse, Louisville, or Pitt have going on in basketball. I know that, and most sane Clemson fans know that. This last expansion was really about basketball. Syracuse and Pitt have football tradition, and I am not about to denigrate it. However, Duke's coach K actually said that this time (as opposed to when Miami, VT, and BC joined) it was about basketball, and he said something to the effect of, "as it should be." Louisville has recent football success, but basically Florida State, Clemson, and a couple others secretly raised holy hell when it looked like Connecticut was getting the invite. Louisville was the best option to bring recently relevant football into the conference.

I just do not trust the old guard of the ACC, and the new teams seem to be going in lock-step with them in regard to the 9th game. I am fine with playing any conference team within the 8 game schedule. I don't want nine games unless a 13 game schedule is approved by the NCAA.

To your other point, The ACC is an easier path, no question about that. However, is it not a great experience when the Dome is sold out and a highly-ranked semi-unknown team comes to play? While it may be harder to win, is that not the game your fans talk about for the rest of the year? That is what we do not want to lose.

Finally, one thing that you may have hit on that has some truth to it is that SEEMS that Clemson thinks they are too good to play in the ACC. Clemson is a founding member of the conference. We are once again nationally relevant. Think about how we became Nationally relevant. We have won 3 of our last 4 against the top SEC teams dating back to the beginning of last season. The ACC does not help teams become nationally relevant. OOC wins against power teams is what is required. When teams beat each other up in the ACC, it is considered mediocre football. When teams in the SEC beat up on each other, it is considered power football. The only way to break that perception is to schedule and win against those teams.

To sum up, I, as a fan of Clemson, am against the 9th game because I believe we need the flexibility to schedule OOC to beef up strength of schedule (without losing 7 home games). I also have some problem with what I perceive as basketball-first schools leeching off of football money without upgrading facilities, or paying top dollar for coaching staffs in football, instead plowing that money into basketball, a sport worth 20 percent of the conference contract. Now, those schools are wanting even more out of the football side of the equation. It stinks.

The tone of Clemson/FSU fans you write about is simply frustration. The decisions made, or being talked about, have implications spanning decades. Many of the people talking about a BIG 12 jump were just completely frustrated with this conference. I was glad that we stayed, but the 9-game slate is a back-breaker. It is no surprise that some lashing out is occurring.

As a newcomer to the conference, I have a feeling that we are going to learn the politics. I can understand the frustration of Clemson and FSU fans. Being new to the conference, I do not really know who you are referring to when you say some schools are leeching off the football schools and not investing in football.
Who would that be?
At Syracuse we have top notch basketball facilities and will soon have top notch indoor football facilities. Our AD pushed this through as a priority to compete in the ACC.

All schools need more revenue, especially state supported colleges.
Facilities cost too much money and we pay all of our coaches more than we should. Everybody would like to have 7 home games every year to maintain a high revenue stream so that we can continue to spend money like drunken sailors.
It is a shame when fans will only show up for a "big game" instead of attending because they enjoy the atmosphere and just want to support their team.
Greed will end up killing off football in the name of being competitive.

(10-05-2013 12:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 12:06 PM)esayem Wrote:  No to a ninth conference game, these should be our yearly 9th games:

Miami------(rotate USF/UCF?)
FSU--------Florida
GT---------Georgia
Clemson---USC
NCSU------ECU
WF---------Vandy
Duke-------Navy (or Tulane if Navy can't)
UNC--------Tennessee
UVA---------UMD
VT-----------WVU
Louisville----UK
Pitt----------Penn St.
Syracuse----UConn
BC----------UMass

Feel free to fine tune it.

I would rather take a bye than play Rutgers as the last game of the season or as a "rivalry game." RU isn't our rival and they never will be.

UCONN v. BC isn't going to happen either.

Yeah, makes sense. I wasn't necessarily thinking last game, just an annual one. I also don't see NCSU playing ECU every year or UNC playing UT (although I'd like that one). So in reality, a few schools would just not have OOC annual games.

(10-21-2013 08:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 12:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 12:06 PM)esayem Wrote:  No to a ninth conference game, these should be our yearly 9th games:

Miami------(rotate USF/UCF?)
FSU--------Florida
GT---------Georgia
Clemson---USC
NCSU------ECU
WF---------Vandy
Duke-------Navy (or Tulane if Navy can't)
UNC--------Tennessee
UVA---------UMD
VT-----------WVU
Louisville----UK
Pitt----------Penn St.
Syracuse----UConn
BC----------UMass

Feel free to fine tune it.

I would rather take a bye than play Rutgers as the last game of the season or as a "rivalry game." RU isn't our rival and they never will be.

UCONN v. BC isn't going to happen either.

Yeah, makes sense. I wasn't necessarily thinking last game, just an annual one. I also don't see NCSU playing ECU every year or UNC playing UT (although I'd like that one). So in reality, a few schools would just not have OOC annual games.

I don't see BC being enthused to play UMASS, but they might be willing to grudgingly do it. However, I don't see us playing UCONN. I would MUCH rather play NW in the prose bowl. I realize they might very well have the worst history in D1, but they're at least a P5 team, their academics are pretty good, and we have a history playing B1G teams, so we might as well stay known amongst B1G fans.

I REALLY want UMD, PSU, or WVU, though. However, I might settle for Army if you're bent on keeping it geographically tight. That said, I would rather the game be played in Yankee stadium as a neutral game every year, or something like that.

im all for 9 conference games only because the guy in charge of scheduling OOC football games is not very good at filling our OOC schedule so less for him to do the better in my mind.