(01-29-2014 03:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why not schedule this way:
9 conference games + 1 permanent OOC = 5 home, 5 away
1 buy game (home game)
1 NEUTRAL game (not home, but still a big payday)

That gives you 6 home, 5 away, and 1 neutral

Because the typical payout for a neutral site game is less than we would make in a home game against even a FCS game. Assure us a payout like Florida is getting in 2017 and we'll talk.

Also, there is a limited number of these game available. It's easy to say "Create more" but if it were financially viable someone would already be doing it.

How much do you think Clemson makes with a home FCS or other "buy" type game? Keep in mind that they only get 1/2 the ticket price for those games when compared to elite opponents. I'm thinking a neutral site game won't make as much as a home game vs. UGA, but it might take in as much as one vs. SC State or GA State.

[and just to make it clear, I am NOT a fan of 9 conference games]

When we played Alabama in the Chick-fil-a game in 2008 we lost money. We had actually turned the game down at least twice before because the money simply wasn't close, and only took it when we did because Bowden thought the exposure the game would provide would make up for the money we lost. We make more per game against anybody, be it a SC State or UGA, than the Chick-fil-a payout. Remember that tickets are only part of the income a home game brings the athletic department.

(01-29-2014 03:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why not schedule this way:
9 conference games + 1 permanent OOC = 5 home, 5 away
1 buy game (home game)
1 NEUTRAL game (not home, but still a big payday)

That gives you 6 home, 5 away, and 1 neutral

Because the typical payout for a neutral site game is less than we would make in a home game against even a FCS game. Assure us a payout like Florida is getting in 2017 and we'll talk.

Also, there is a limited number of these game available. It's easy to say "Create more" but if it were financially viable someone would already be doing it.

How much do you think Clemson makes with a home FCS or other "buy" type game? Keep in mind that they only get 1/2 the ticket price for those games when compared to elite opponents. I'm thinking a neutral site game won't make as much as a home game vs. UGA, but it might take in as much as one vs. SC State or GA State.

[and just to make it clear, I am NOT a fan of 9 conference games]

When we played Alabama in the Chick-fil-a game in 2008 we lost money. We had actually turned the game down at least twice before because the money simply wasn't close, and only took it when we did because Bowden thought the exposure the game would provide would make up for the money we lost. We make more per game against anybody, be it a SC State or UGA, than the Chick-fil-a payout. Remember that tickets are only part of the income a home game brings the athletic department.

What's your net with a home game against a chump? $6 million or more?

(01-29-2014 03:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why not schedule this way:
9 conference games + 1 permanent OOC = 5 home, 5 away
1 buy game (home game)
1 NEUTRAL game (not home, but still a big payday)

That gives you 6 home, 5 away, and 1 neutral

Because the typical payout for a neutral site game is less than we would make in a home game against even a FCS game. Assure us a payout like Florida is getting in 2017 and we'll talk.

Also, there is a limited number of these game available. It's easy to say "Create more" but if it were financially viable someone would already be doing it.

How much do you think Clemson makes with a home FCS or other "buy" type game? Keep in mind that they only get 1/2 the ticket price for those games when compared to elite opponents. I'm thinking a neutral site game won't make as much as a home game vs. UGA, but it might take in as much as one vs. SC State or GA State.

[and just to make it clear, I am NOT a fan of 9 conference games]

I thought those "buy" games were part of the season ticket package. Those seats may go for a lot less on the secondary market, but the school is still getting full price unless I'm mistaken.

(01-29-2014 03:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why not schedule this way:
9 conference games + 1 permanent OOC = 5 home, 5 away
1 buy game (home game)
1 NEUTRAL game (not home, but still a big payday)

That gives you 6 home, 5 away, and 1 neutral

Because the typical payout for a neutral site game is less than we would make in a home game against even a FCS game. Assure us a payout like Florida is getting in 2017 and we'll talk.

Also, there is a limited number of these game available. It's easy to say "Create more" but if it were financially viable someone would already be doing it.

How much do you think Clemson makes with a home FCS or other "buy" type game? Keep in mind that they only get 1/2 the ticket price for those games when compared to elite opponents. I'm thinking a neutral site game won't make as much as a home game vs. UGA, but it might take in as much as one vs. SC State or GA State.

[and just to make it clear, I am NOT a fan of 9 conference games]

When we played Alabama in the Chick-fil-a game in 2008 we lost money. We had actually turned the game down at least twice before because the money simply wasn't close, and only took it when we did because Bowden thought the exposure the game would provide would make up for the money we lost. We make more per game against anybody, be it a SC State or UGA, than the Chick-fil-a payout. Remember that tickets are only part of the income a home game brings the athletic department.

What's your net with a home game against a chump? $6 million or more?

At worst I would say $5 million.

(01-29-2014 02:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:04 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  After reading that from our AD the last time this almost happened, how can anyone lend credence that you know more about it than the AD in charge of the school in question?

AD's sell their stance. Pittsburgh's AD blamed the Big East turning down ESPN;s contract as a reason they left, despite he himself leading the charge to do so. My own AD does such things (says something public that doesn't jive with his actions or reality). That is business.

I won't even get into the rest, because you just tried to now say they would lose a home game "Every year." What is Clemson going to be the only team who plays 5 road conference games every year? And again, you only even lose one every other year if you chose to replace the extra game with a buy game every year. Which also means you maintained the scheduling flexibility you wanted.

Again, YOU CANNOT claim both inconveniences. It simply does not work that way. I don't care what your AD publicly said. It either replaces a buy game every year, and you lose one lowsy home game every other year, it replaces a BCS home and home series and you lose some scheduling flexibility but retain the same number of home games, or you do a mixture and you lose one home game every FOUR years and only have one BCS OOC series every other year.

There is no option D that makes you lose a home game e3very other year AND schedule flexibility, and there is NO option at all that forces you to lose a home game every season. that was what I said, and you did nothing to disprove that other than trying to combine scenarios over several years and trying to sell them as all happening at once.

Pitt's AD did no such thing. That was major bs vomited from Rick Pitino or Jurich when they were acting like jilted school girls. The school that actually led the charge to take the contract to the open market was Georgetown, and nearly everyone was on board with that because it was absolutely the right thing to do.

It had zero to do with Pitt leaving, as Pitt and Syracuse both would have left regardless, as would have Louisville, WVU, Rutgers and UConn, or anyone else that had any option to do so. The only thing that the ESPN contract would have done is uncomfortably hold the Cincy, USF, and UConn together with the Catholics.

May 2010 is the letter dated from Pitt's Chancellor informing the Big East leadership that it would explore all other membership options.

Pitt and Cuse were going to leave regardless, but not to the same conferences. You used the Big 12 carrot in order to get to the ACC. Luck said as much and used your example. Problem is, he never got the ACC invite like Pitt. did. That is why Jurich was pissed. He thought we were joining the Big 12 with Pitt. and WVU. This is just what I have heard. If you look at the video of Jurich at the football game when he was told you were gone, you can tell he was blindsided.

(01-29-2014 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:36 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yet the SEC has managed to survive since 1933 with member teams only playing occasionally. Florida has played Alabama almost as much since the SEC split into divisions in 1992 (13) as they had in the first 58 years of the SEC (16) yet somehow both schools not only survived, they thrived.

If you want a "strawman" argument, Clemson survived and thrived from 1992 - 2006 with only 3 OOC games, one being South Carolina, when you played 8 conference games on an 11 game schedule, but now can't live with only 3?

We weren't dependent on the revenue from the additional home game to overcome the deficit our conference puts us in compared to the regional schools we compete against because at that time our conference was paying more per school than others. Now we are behind every other P5 conference, and way behind the regional schools we compete against so every bit of revenue helps.

We also weren't in a position where we needed a strong OOC slate to overcome a weak conference for SOS purposes.

If your defense is "times have changed," then don't come at me with stats from another conference's situation from 60 years ago and think it is a relevant response.

(01-29-2014 02:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt's AD did no such thing. That was major bs vomited from Rick Pitino or Jurich when they were acting like jilted school girls. The school that actually led the charge to take the contract to the open market was Georgetown, and nearly everyone was on board with that because it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Paco, Pitt's AD did, without a doubt, was one of the biggest proponents of not accepting the contract. However, I do agree it was the right move. That was not the point.Iit was the point that he used it as a "Reason" why they left, despite being one of the stonch opponents, showing that AD's public comments cannot always be taken at face value. As I said, Jurich himself is not immune to such a tactic, as any Louisville fan can remind you of comments made between 2006-2009.

Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

This is how UofL fans saw the situation.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ulpGbOPKM8


Now I love that we are in the ACC and I love that we have the opportunity to play Pitt..

I'm just giving you a glimpse as to what I was seeing at the time. Could be bs, but this is why I approach this the way I do. Glad for the outcome.

(01-29-2014 04:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  This is how UofL fans saw the situation.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ulpGbOPKM8


Now I love that we are in the ACC and I love that we have the opportunity to play Pitt..

I'm just giving you a glimpse as to what I was seeing at the time. Could be bs, but this is why I approach this the way I do. Glad for the outcome.

Yeah, I couldn't care less about how Card "saw" it, trying to save face. I remember the whinny bs coming from your athletic department at the time. And is was total bs. Louisville was talking to Pitt about going to the B12 at that point. Everyone knew what was going on. His only surprise was the timing of the ACC and that Louisville was left behind because everyone knew any of the football schools were jumping ship at first ACC or B10 offer. Your AD shouldn't have backed Villanova.

(01-29-2014 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt's AD did no such thing. That was major bs vomited from Rick Pitino or Jurich when they were acting like jilted school girls. The school that actually led the charge to take the contract to the open market was Georgetown, and nearly everyone was on board with that because it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Paco, Pitt's AD did, without a doubt, was one of the biggest proponents of not accepting the contract. However, I do agree it was the right move. That was not the point.Iit was the point that he used it as a "Reason" why they left, despite being one of the stonch opponents, showing that AD's public comments cannot always be taken at face value. As I said, Jurich himself is not immune to such a tactic, as any Louisville fan can remind you of comments made between 2006-2009.

Yeah, so was everyone's AD. Trying to pin it on them is bull, and I don't accept or respect it from your AD.

Basically, other people try to point out the issues, and adcorbett refuses to give the other viewpoint credence. It is turning into a hopeless exercise.

This stuff about ADs selling their viewpoint, follow closely: When this happened last time, Clemson cancelled future home-and-homes with OK ST, and Miss State because we could not afford a 6-game home schedule on the years where we would have to go to their stadium. TDP (In the article I linked and posted an excerpt from) talked about this, and out of all the future home-and-aways scheduled, the ONLY one that was kept the UGA series. He cancelled every other home-and-away series on future schedules to ensure the ability to schedule for a 7-game home slate.

He even stated in another interview that the pressure was so great not to cancel the UGA game that they had planned to take the financial hit (6 home games when we wer to play in Athens) to allow the series to occur. He also explained that it would be a one time only series, and that such series would not happen again in the future.

In this instance, adcorbett, your information and premise is incorrect as it applies to Clemson.

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

Loo, don't get mad because your retort was not well thought out. Now if you sti back and look, you will notice that NEVER have any conference teams played so many of their conference mates so few times. Prior to the schedules for this season, each teams played most of the opponents in the opposite division every other year, with the rest every third year. Same with the SEC (the Big 12 played every opponent at least once every other year, and the Big Ten played every team 2 out of three years at worst).

It is not me showing evidence that the ACC needs to play more often, despite you trying to say so in another not well thought out response. Because if anything, a nine game schedule more or less maintains the status quo in terms of playing other members AND the number of OOC foes teams plays. If anything, the onus would be on you to find an example where playing so many teams within your conference so rarely HAS worked.

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  Basically, other people try to point out the issues, and adcorbett refuses to give the other viewpoint credence. It is turning into a hopeless exercise.

No, this is not true. It is not about not giving other viewpoints:it is about you not realizing that you are coming up with multiple complaints that cannot exist on the same plain. It's not that we don't understand: you just don't seem to comprehend that only one can be valid, as certain things cannot coexist. And the complaints you made (and said the AD made) are two of them. It is one, or the other. Not both. Whichever remedy is chosen, only has one side effect.

(01-29-2014 04:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, so was everyone's AD. Trying to pin it on them is bull, and I don't accept or respect it from your AD.

Now make up your mind. First you claimed it never happened. Now you say it did, but everyone else's did too, so he shouldn't be blamed? Which is it. Same as above, you can't live in both plains, first being resolute that he didn't do it, then acknowledging maybe eh did, but there was nothing wrong with, yet still trying to maintain the validity of your first statement.
Now, again, I don't condemn him for it, don't blame him for it, don't even care that he did it (or the others who did). He did what was best. You keep bringing up points to show why he may have done it, after trying to act like some lie was made up. It happened. Give it up. Let it go. I used it as an example to point out that an AD's public statements are not the gospel. I picked that one because it is the most public of ones that many will remember. We can use coaches for the same example, but everyone knows they lie, so it would not have the same effect.

(01-28-2014 01:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  In December, the Associated Press reported that Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross sent letters to his colleagues suggesting a nine-game schedule in part so schools in smaller markets (like Syracuse) can make more visits to schools in bigger markets like Boston College, Tech and Miami.

Help me out here, Syracuse fans. I can understand maybe wanting to play BC more often. But I assumed that was because they were within driving distance, not because they are in a big market. I can even understand Miami. But again, not because they are urban, but because they sit on a recruiting gold mine. But Tech (I assume that's GT, not VT)? What's the attraction?

Its Georgia Tech. Its a gold mine for recruiting. The 4th best state for producing football recruits.

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

I don't think it is essential for the ACC teams to play each other more often. The only reason would be if ESPN wants to pay more to get content for the ACC TV network. Unless the dollars add up I doubt the schools will vote for it.

(01-29-2014 04:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  This is how UofL fans saw the situation.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ulpGbOPKM8


Now I love that we are in the ACC and I love that we have the opportunity to play Pitt..

I'm just giving you a glimpse as to what I was seeing at the time. Could be bs, but this is why I approach this the way I do. Glad for the outcome.

Yeah, I couldn't care less about how Card "saw" it, trying to save face. I remember the whinny bs coming from your athletic department at the time. And is was total bs. Louisville was talking to Pitt about going to the B12 at that point. Everyone knew what was going on. His only surprise was the timing of the ACC and that Louisville was left behind because everyone knew any of the football schools were jumping ship at first ACC or B10 offer. Your AD shouldn't have backed Villanova.

More John Marinatto than Villanova, but yea, I agree. He gave us the opportunity to grow. We don't have the history of Pitt.

(01-29-2014 05:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

Loo, don't get mad because your retort was not well thought out. Now if you sti back and look, you will notice that NEVER have any conference teams played so many of their conference mates so few times. Prior to the schedules for this season, each teams played most of the opponents in the opposite division every other year, with the rest every third year. Same with the SEC (the Big 12 played every opponent at least once every other year, and the Big Ten played every team 2 out of three years at worst).

It is not me showing evidence that the ACC needs to play more often, despite you trying to say so in another not well thought out response. Because if anything, a nine game schedule more or less maintains the status quo in terms of playing other members AND the number of OOC foes teams plays. If anything, the onus would be on you to find an example where playing so many teams within your conference so rarely HAS worked.

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  Basically, other people try to point out the issues, and adcorbett refuses to give the other viewpoint credence. It is turning into a hopeless exercise.

No, this is not true. It is not about not giving other viewpoints:it is about you not realizing that you are coming up with multiple complaints that cannot exist on the same plain. It's not that we don't understand: you just don't seem to comprehend that only one can be valid, as certain things cannot coexist. And the complaints you made (and said the AD made) are two of them. It is one, or the other. Not both. Whichever remedy is chosen, only has one side effect.

(01-29-2014 04:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, so was everyone's AD. Trying to pin it on them is bull, and I don't accept or respect it from your AD.

Now make up your mind. First you claimed it never happened. Now you say it did, but everyone else's did too, so he shouldn't be blamed? Which is it. Same as above, you can't live in both plains, first being resolute that he didn't do it, then acknowledging maybe eh did, but there was nothing wrong with, yet still trying to maintain the validity of your first statement.
Now, again, I don't condemn him for it, don't blame him for it, don't even care that he did it (or the others who did). He did what was best. You keep bringing up points to show why he may have done it, after trying to act like some lie was made up. It happened. Give it up. Let it go. I used it as an example to point out that an AD's public statements are not the gospel. I picked that one because it is the most public of ones that many will remember. We can use coaches for the same example, but everyone knows they lie, so it would not have the same effect.

I don't understand where the assertion that anyone at Pitt used not having/signing the ESPN contract as a reason why the school left the Big East. I think that it's a myth as I have never seen an article or even a single quote from anyone at Pitt confirming this.

I agree that Pitt's administration played a big part in rejecting ESPN's renewal offer. I think if you look back you will be able to find articles and quotations from Pitt's administration on point for this. At the same time, I think they did 100% the right thing - and that rejecting the extension with ESPN was the right thing to do for the Big East Conference as a whole.

The only quotes I have ever seen from Pitt's administration about the move centered on the ACC being a better opportunity (true) and fit (true).

And you know what the real reasons were - money and survival.

I don't understand why this keeps coming up.

(01-29-2014 05:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

Loo, don't get mad because your retort was not well thought out. Now if you sti back and look, you will notice that NEVER have any conference teams played so many of their conference mates so few times. Prior to the schedules for this season, each teams played most of the opponents in the opposite division every other year, with the rest every third year. Same with the SEC (the Big 12 played every opponent at least once every other year, and the Big Ten played every team 2 out of three years at worst).

It is not me showing evidence that the ACC needs to play more often, despite you trying to say so in another not well thought out response. Because if anything, a nine game schedule more or less maintains the status quo in terms of playing other members AND the number of OOC foes teams plays. If anything, the onus would be on you to find an example where playing so many teams within your conference so rarely HAS worked.

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  Basically, other people try to point out the issues, and adcorbett refuses to give the other viewpoint credence. It is turning into a hopeless exercise.

No, this is not true. It is not about not giving other viewpoints:it is about you not realizing that you are coming up with multiple complaints that cannot exist on the same plain. It's not that we don't understand: you just don't seem to comprehend that only one can be valid, as certain things cannot coexist. And the complaints you made (and said the AD made) are two of them. It is one, or the other. Not both. Whichever remedy is chosen, only has one side effect.

(01-29-2014 04:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, so was everyone's AD. Trying to pin it on them is bull, and I don't accept or respect it from your AD.

Now make up your mind. First you claimed it never happened. Now you say it did, but everyone else's did too, so he shouldn't be blamed? Which is it. Same as above, you can't live in both plains, first being resolute that he didn't do it, then acknowledging maybe eh did, but there was nothing wrong with, yet still trying to maintain the validity of your first statement.
Now, again, I don't condemn him for it, don't blame him for it, don't even care that he did it (or the others who did). He did what was best. You keep bringing up points to show why he may have done it, after trying to act like some lie was made up. It happened. Give it up. Let it go. I used it as an example to point out that an AD's public statements are not the gospel. I picked that one because it is the most public of ones that many will remember. We can use coaches for the same example, but everyone knows they lie, so it would not have the same effect.

Let me try a different approach, and let you be the AD for Clemson and create a 2-year schedule for us that has a 9-game conference schedule and still preserves 7 home games a year. Pull that off in a realistic fashion, and I will concede that I am wrong.

(01-30-2014 02:11 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 05:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

Loo, don't get mad because your retort was not well thought out. Now if you sti back and look, you will notice that NEVER have any conference teams played so many of their conference mates so few times. Prior to the schedules for this season, each teams played most of the opponents in the opposite division every other year, with the rest every third year. Same with the SEC (the Big 12 played every opponent at least once every other year, and the Big Ten played every team 2 out of three years at worst).

It is not me showing evidence that the ACC needs to play more often, despite you trying to say so in another not well thought out response. Because if anything, a nine game schedule more or less maintains the status quo in terms of playing other members AND the number of OOC foes teams plays. If anything, the onus would be on you to find an example where playing so many teams within your conference so rarely HAS worked.

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  Basically, other people try to point out the issues, and adcorbett refuses to give the other viewpoint credence. It is turning into a hopeless exercise.

No, this is not true. It is not about not giving other viewpoints:it is about you not realizing that you are coming up with multiple complaints that cannot exist on the same plain. It's not that we don't understand: you just don't seem to comprehend that only one can be valid, as certain things cannot coexist. And the complaints you made (and said the AD made) are two of them. It is one, or the other. Not both. Whichever remedy is chosen, only has one side effect.

(01-29-2014 04:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, so was everyone's AD. Trying to pin it on them is bull, and I don't accept or respect it from your AD.

Now make up your mind. First you claimed it never happened. Now you say it did, but everyone else's did too, so he shouldn't be blamed? Which is it. Same as above, you can't live in both plains, first being resolute that he didn't do it, then acknowledging maybe eh did, but there was nothing wrong with, yet still trying to maintain the validity of your first statement.
Now, again, I don't condemn him for it, don't blame him for it, don't even care that he did it (or the others who did). He did what was best. You keep bringing up points to show why he may have done it, after trying to act like some lie was made up. It happened. Give it up. Let it go. I used it as an example to point out that an AD's public statements are not the gospel. I picked that one because it is the most public of ones that many will remember. We can use coaches for the same example, but everyone knows they lie, so it would not have the same effect.

Let me try a different approach, and let you be the AD for Clemson and create a 2-year schedule for us that has a 9-game conference schedule and still preserves 7 home games a year. Pull that off in a realistic fashion, and I will concede that I am wrong.

In the 4-5 year you would have to have South Carolina at home, then two chumps at home or a home visit from another decent team. You can kick the ball down the road but at some point, you can't sustain the 7 home games.

(01-29-2014 05:45 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still waiting on you to provide evidence that it is essential for ACC teams to play each other more often. Then we will talk about what is relevant or not.

I don't think it is essential for the ACC teams to play each other more often. The only reason would be if ESPN wants to pay more to get content for the ACC TV network. Unless the dollars add up I doubt the schools will vote for it.

They didn't the first time around and the idiots voted for it.