(02-06-2012 01:08 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Just a comparison

Trips over 600 miles that UNC has to make to visit their Coastal Division foes: 1 ( Miami 805 miles)

Trips over 600 miles that NC state has to make to visit their Atlantic Division foes: 3 (BC 695 miles, Syracuse 635 miles, FSU 615 miles)

Trips under 200 miles UNC has to make for divisional games: 3
Trips under 200 miles NC State has to make for divisional games: 1

Average UNC divisional trip : 337 miles
Average NC State divisional trip: 435 miles

Pure coincidence I am sure.

Naturally. Surely John Swofford wouldn't do anything that would show he has a conflict of interest...

Someone needs to get Swofford out of ACC headquarters before it's too late... if it isn't already!

(02-06-2012 01:08 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Just a comparison

Trips over 600 miles that UNC has to make to visit their Coastal Division foes: 1 ( Miami 805 miles)

Trips over 600 miles that NC state has to make to visit their Atlantic Division foes: 3 (BC 695 miles, Syracuse 635 miles, FSU 615 miles)

Trips under 200 miles UNC has to make for divisional games: 3
Trips under 200 miles NC State has to make for divisional games: 1

Average UNC divisional trip : 337 miles
Average NC State divisional trip: 435 miles

Pure coincidence I am sure.

You can swap those two and put in Wake and Duke and it'll be exactly the same so who gives a ****.

(02-06-2012 01:08 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Just a comparison

Trips over 600 miles that UNC has to make to visit their Coastal Division foes: 1 ( Miami 805 miles)

Trips over 600 miles that NC state has to make to visit their Atlantic Division foes: 3 (BC 695 miles, Syracuse 635 miles, FSU 615 miles)

Trips under 200 miles UNC has to make for divisional games: 3
Trips under 200 miles NC State has to make for divisional games: 1

Average UNC divisional trip : 337 miles
Average NC State divisional trip: 435 miles

Pure coincidence I am sure.

Average distance to all conference members for NC State is 374 miles.
Under the future divisional alignment their average game will be 381 miles. They will travel a total of 61 miles each year farther than if they had a random schedule. That is about 14 miles per game for a round trip. We are throwing a fit over 14 miles per trip now?

These teams travel more miles than a random sample would give them (total miles yearly): Clemson (137), FSU (292), NCSU (61), Wake (137), Pitt (14), and VT (113)
FSU has it the worst with having to travel an average of 65 miles more per game on a round trip.

These teams travel the most total miles per year:
Miami:7990
BC: 6991
FSU: 6640
Cuse: 5918
Pitt: 4855
GT: 4398
Clemson: 4217

These travel the least:
Duke: 2959
UNC: 2982
UVA: 3313
Wake: 3369
NC State: 3427
VT: 3562
UMD: 3975


EDIT: Since you picked 200 miles I'll pick 300 to be just as arbitrary. NC State has 7 conference members within 300 miles. Three of them are within division and they are primary partners with another. That is 4 of 7. UNC is within 300 miles of 7 of the members. They are in a division with three of them and primary partners with another.

As I've said a couple of times over the past several months, Pitt would go to the Coastal because that is what Miami wanted and should ND ever decide to join, they plop right into the Coastal with BC then becoming their cross-over rival.

This isn't about trying to screw over Clemson, it's about strengthening Miami and making an attractive division for ND if they ever give up independence.

Though personally I think the divisional thing will go out the window when a conference finally has the guts to go 16 all sports to be replaced by the pod system.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-05-2012 03:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 09:29 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I have honestly yet to find a Clemson fan that thinks this is a good idea. I have only found a few that even have a neutral opinion. The vast majority are upset because they know that we are essentially trading an assured sellout each year from a high profile OOC game for an additional game against a conference team that will not travel.

This is a prime example as to why the ACC sucks in football. The rot starts at the top. When you have piss poor leadership nothing good is going to come of any venture you attempt to make.

That's odd since the decision was made by a committee made up of faculty representatives from EVERY school in the ACC and ALL of their athletic directors.
Evidently the Clemson Athletic department though it was a good idea.

Just wanted to revisit this.

From what I am being told there were 2 votes against.....Clemson and FSU. Both schools felt that it was against our interests to add an uninteresting to our fanbases conference game at the cost of high profile OOC home and home.

I've also been told that unless something extraordinary comes along because of the revenue deficit the piss poor ACC TV contract is going to leave us in compared to our regional SEC rivals we will not be playing any decent OOC series besides South Carolina because we need the 7th home game revenue. Maybe a one off Chick-Fil-A Kickoff game every couple years because of the payout and guaranteed television exposure, but because of the constricted nature of our schedule under the 9 ACC game slate home and homes with high profile opponents is no longer an option. In other words two of the strongest football programs were screwed over by our basketball conference.

I can only hope that the Big East fights Pitt and Syracuse tooth and nail to keep them for 27 months so that we can at least play our last series ever against Georgia before this basketball conference assures us of one sellout one year (FSU) and two the next (GT & South Carolina)

(02-14-2012 10:04 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  ...there were 2 votes against.....Clemson and FSU. Both schools felt that it was against our interests to add an uninteresting to our fanbases conference game at the cost of high profile OOC home and home.

I believe this. The 2 biggest stadiums with locked in OOC rivals.

Quote:...unless something extraordinary comes along... we will not be playing any decent OOC series besides South Carolina because we need the 7th home game revenue. Maybe a one off Chick-Fil-A Kickoff game every couple years because of the payout and guaranteed television exposure, but because of the constricted nature of our schedule under the 9 ACC game slate home and homes with high profile opponents is no longer an option.

I think this is going to be a trend in all conferences, actually. I think you'll see most high-profile OOC games played on "neutral sites" from now on. And I do think it's inevitable that the SEC and B1G will follow suit and go to 9 conference games like everybody else.

Quote: I can only hope that the Big East fights Pitt and Syracuse tooth and nail to keep them for 27 months so that we can at least play our last series ever against Georgia before this basketball conference assures us of one sellout one year (FSU) and two the next (GT & South Carolina)

This is the REAL ISSUE here. The other ACC teams need to travel better - I get that. But Clemson also needs to support it's own team better. Va Tech sells out EVERY home game (though admittedly with a bigger student population). Clemson sold out in the Danny Ford days with this same slate of ACC opponents - no, worse because you played UNC, Duke, and UVa every year and you didn't have FSU in conference back then. What changed? How do you get it back?

(02-14-2012 11:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This is the REAL ISSUE here. The other ACC teams need to travel better - I get that. But Clemson also needs to support it's own team better. Va Tech sells out EVERY home game (though admittedly with a bigger student population).

And 15k less seats.

Quote:Clemson sold out in the Danny Ford days with this same slate of ACC opponents - no, worse because you played UNC, Duke, and UVa every year and you didn't have FSU in conference back then. What changed? How do you get it back?

We didn't sell out every game back then either. We would sell out UGA, South Carolina, and GT for sure, Maryland under Bobby Ross was a big draw, and when Sheridan was at State. Duke, Wake, UVA, and UNC never sold out, even early in the 1980's when UNC was actually pretty good and stadium capacity was smaller. At the 1988 game I believe their band had more members than they had traveling fans.

Thinking to myself...

"VaTech with a larger student body population than Clemson, but with a FB stadium with 15K less seats sounds like a sound 'supply/demand' business strategy to me..."

(02-14-2012 11:57 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Thinking to myself...

"VaTech with a larger student body population than Clemson, but with a FB stadium with 15K less seats sounds like a sound 'supply/demand' business strategy to me..."

Maybe. But when we sellout games when we bring in decent opponents it sounds like the rest of our conference needs to step up it's game.

The problem isn't the size of the stadium, as FSU, GT, and South Carolina show every other year and UGA, VT, Miami, Auburn, and Texas A&M have shown in the past. The problem is uninteresting games against programs who look at football as a diversion until Midnight Madness. You can't expect Clemson to get excited about playing North Carolina/Duke/UVA in football when their own fanbase isn't excited.

(02-14-2012 12:07 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 11:57 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Thinking to myself...

"VaTech with a larger student body population than Clemson, but with a FB stadium with 15K less seats sounds like a sound 'supply/demand' business strategy to me..."

Maybe. But when we sellout games when we bring in decent opponents it sounds like the rest of our conference needs to step up it's game.

The problem isn't the size of the stadium, as FSU, GT, and South Carolina show every other year and UGA, VT, Miami, Auburn, and Texas A&M have shown in the past. The problem is uninteresting games against programs who look at football as a diversion until Midnight Madness. You can't expect Clemson to get excited about playing North Carolina/Duke/UVA in football when their own fanbase isn't excited.

While I may be throwing stones at a glass house here. But why do you need to rely on fans traveling to "Death Valley" to have a sell out? I'd be priding myself on making sure 0 fans from an opponents school shows up.

(02-14-2012 12:18 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  While I may be throwing stones at a glass house here. But why do you need to rely on fans traveling to "Death Valley" to have a sell out? I'd be priding myself on making sure 0 fans from an opponents school shows up.

When fans are excited enough about their program to go to away games it generally shows the school has dedicated itself to having a quality football program. Do you think UNC would have averaged 5 wins a year for the past decade with their resources if they took 10k fans on the road for every game? What about the bowl tie-ins? Do you think that we would be in Shreveport at all if we as a conference showed we could travel? When bowl scouts are at games and there are 1-2k opposing fans in a stadium how inclined do you think they are to invite that team?

Part of what makes the SEC great is the fact that from top to bottom the schools support their team. I've been to UK @ South Carolina games where neither team was close to bowl eligibility and UK still traveled in huge numbers, far greater than the majority of crowds we have seen in the past from Tabakky Rd and UVA. I'm being as honest as I can be when I say that there was no appreciable difference this year between the crowd that Wofford (enrollment 1500) brought than the one that UNC brought (enrollment 28k).

(02-14-2012 12:18 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  ...why do you need to rely on fans traveling to "Death Valley" to have a sell out? I'd be priding myself on making sure 0 fans from an opponents school shows up.

^^^ This ^^^. It's all about dominating those you are supposed to dominate. If they don't care about football, punish them. Run up the score. Humiliate them so bad that they'll travel next time just for revenge.

To be fair to CatDaddy, there IS a difference depending on who you play - take Oklahoma for instance - here are some relevant attendance numbers from 2008*

8/30 Chattanooga Norman 84,715 <-- OOC; 900 less than max
9/6 Cincinnati Norman 84,476 <-- OOC; 1200 less than max
9/27 TCU Norman 85,158 <-- 500 less than max
10/11 Texas @Dallas 92,182 <-- neutral site
10/18 Kansas Norman 85,241 <-- 400 less than max
. . .
11/22 Texas Tech Norman 85,646 <-- max home crowd

Kansas is the Big12 version of UNC, but Oklahoma nearly sold out that game and actually had more in attendance than the TCU game. The 2 poorest attended? it was the 2 OOC games. Cincy probably brought nobody with them, and the stadium was not full.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Take advantage of little-known NCAA rule allowing you to schedule a 13th regular season game! Here's what the rule states:
17.9.5.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS] The maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:
. . .
(k) Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico. [FBS/FCS] Any football games played in Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico, respectively, either against or under the sponsorship of an active member institution located in Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico, by a Division I member institution located outside the area in question;

Here's how it works:
Most teams simply schedule Hawaii as their 13th game (Tenn. and USC have both done this). However, that does little since it's an away game. FAR away.

But wait! you don't have to actually PLAY Hawaii, they only have to sponsor it. Better yet -- Puerto Rico, which HAS an NCAA basketball team, I think could sponsor a neutral site game. THAT'S the solution! Play an SEC team, but do it in Puerto Rico - and STILL get your 7 home games!

(02-14-2012 02:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  blah blah blah total nonsense blah blah blah

Best idea is stick with 8 ACC games a year since the vast majority of them end up on Raycom, ESPNU or ESPN3 anyway. Lord knows the world could stand to miss those thrilling FSU/Duke matchups a little more.

It's odd that the most complaints come from fans of schools that were so in favor of expansion in the first place.

Without expansion, ACC football would've been dreadful. The 2 most successful football teams in the ACC over the past 9 years (in terms of top 25 finishes) have been expansion teams #11 (VT) and #9 (FSU). Clemson is 3rd best, followed by 2 more expansion teams tied for 4th - #10 (Miami) and #12 (BC). The final expansion team, #8 (GT), is tied for 6th.

expansion sequence (for the benefit of newbies):
original 7: clemson, duke, nc st, unc, wake, uva, maryland
#8: ga tech
#9: fsu
#10, #11: miami, va tech
#12: bc

In Cat Daddy's defense -- number of teams is a separate discussion from number of conference games.

Actually the orignial 7 included: Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest, Dook,
Carolina, Clemson, and South Carolina.
#8 was UVa.
South Carolina left.
Ga. Tech became the new #8
#9 FSU
#10 Va. Tech
#11 Miami
#12 BC

(02-15-2012 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the orignial 7 included: Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest, Dook,
Carolina, Clemson, and South Carolina.
#8 was UVa.
South Carolina left.
Ga. Tech became the new #8
#9 FSU
#10 Va. Tech
#11 Miami
#12 BC

I stand corrected.

Sorry, I don't go back that far. Started watching ACC football around 1977 (didn't pay attention to VT football until 1980).

(02-15-2012 01:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the orignial 7 included: Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest, Dook,
Carolina, Clemson, and South Carolina.
#8 was UVa.
South Carolina left.
Ga. Tech became the new #8
#9 FSU
#10 Va. Tech
#11 Miami
#12 BC

I stand corrected.

Sorry, I don't go back that far. Started watching ACC football around 1977 (didn't pay attention to VT football until 1980).

Some UVA fans get really bent out of shape when you remind them that they are not a founding member of the ACC.