(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 05:55 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since when does - or should - the SEC care what the ACC does with its scheduling?

Especially when as Bullet noted, the ACC had no problem canceling 3 or 4 early-season SEC vs ACC games. They cancel those but want to hold the November games, three of which are home for the ACC? Suuuuure.

Plus, there's only four SEC teams with these rivalry games, so the other 10 are supposed to play OOC games to accommodate them?

Please.

Apparently they do not care - you’re right about that. Which is what I’m getting at. It’s embarrassing and they should be ashamed of themselves for not wanting to find a way to make it work

IMO, anyone who thinks the SEC should "work" with the ACC to preserve four games the ACC wants to play, when the ACC unilaterally canceled four games vs the SEC without any such consideration, is just not thinking clearly. It's a pretty selfish stance that shows no regard for one's conference mates.

The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

They also cancelled Notre Dame-Arkansas.

(08-01-2020 09:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:16 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 07:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 02:15 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well a congressman got a gripe on the record. So effing what. The government is not doing squat about tens of thousands of broken contracts due to covid-19. College football games are not special to the eyes of the court.

It's a South Carolina legislator, and as state institutions if the SC legislature passes a law requiring the two schools to play the schools are obligated to do so and there is absolutely nothing the conferences can do about that. It's already happened once back in 1952 when Clemson was suspended by the Southern Conference and the SoCon prohibited member schools from playing Clemson and Maryland.

I’m hoping we hear something on it next week. Both schools are willing and want to. There’s no reason we couldn’t do it on 9/5 as both schools are off then. Also, I heard yesterday the SEC intends to leave the last week of the season open, so there potentially be a game there as long as the ACC schedule doesn’t conflict with it.

That’s out of the box scheduling. Even though the SEC is not seeking any out of conference games, could USC, UGA, UF and UK just do their own arrangement?

These schools would be prioritizing rivalry over conference nice...very much in line with college football tradition.

As far as I know there’s nothing the SEC could technically do to stop us other than banning us from the SEC championship game, and that is almost absurdly unlikely anyway. I’d think we’d still seek their blessing regardless and maybe they’d allow it at the end of the season if we are already eliminated from contention

If we’re able to play a season without issue and both teams get to a mutual bye week then who knows. Our AD said yesterday that nothing is set in stone yet but I’d put the odds as very very low right now

(08-01-2020 10:06 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Now you see why every time I put together a new realignment I always put these in state rivals in the same conference even if I have to move the teams around. Almost every time I keep the Florida and Georgia schools together so if Florida/Georgia is bigger than Florida/Florida State and Georgia/Georgia Tech, Florida and Georgia can have their cake and eat it too. There was one realignment I separated UF and UGa recently and I could certainly switch it around so they can stay together.

Yeah. As someone who was always very very strongly against Clemson to the SEC I’m now in favor of just adding them so that this insanity never happens again

(08-01-2020 10:35 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:06 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Now you see why every time I put together a new realignment I always put these in state rivals in the same conference even if I have to move the teams around. Almost every time I keep the Florida and Georgia schools together so if Florida/Georgia is bigger than Florida/Florida State and Georgia/Georgia Tech, Florida and Georgia can have their cake and eat it too. There was one realignment I separated UF and UGa recently and I could certainly switch it around so they can stay together.

Yeah. As someone who was always very very strongly against Clemson to the SEC I’m now in favor of just adding them so that this insanity never happens again

There is another way to fix your problem and give you hope of winning a conference title.

Also your legislature can step in since you are a Dillon's Rule State and order the game played on a certain date. They can declare November 19, 2020 Big Thursday. Nothing the ACC nor SEC can do about that.

On a less Machiavellian note, if attendance is curtailed to 10-20% what is the point of playing a good OOC game?

At NC State 57-58K will show up to watch podunkshitstateU - at least until half time when they go back to their tailgate. The incentives to have a really good OOC game are somewhat limited and meaningless is there is no reason to show up.

I don't know if we will go to Starkville next year. We lost a home game against West Va due to a hurricane, but went to Morgantown anyway. I'm sure someone will come up with bright idea to play in Atlanta or Charlotte but quite frankly Charlotte sucks, and Atlanta on the Labor Day weekend is like the last stop on the way to Hell.

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 05:55 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since when does - or should - the SEC care what the ACC does with its scheduling?

Especially when as Bullet noted, the ACC had no problem canceling 3 or 4 early-season SEC vs ACC games. They cancel those but want to hold the November games, three of which are home for the ACC? Suuuuure.

Plus, there's only four SEC teams with these rivalry games, so the other 10 are supposed to play OOC games to accommodate them?

Please.

Apparently they do not care - you’re right about that. Which is what I’m getting at. It’s embarrassing and they should be ashamed of themselves for not wanting to find a way to make it work

IMO, anyone who thinks the SEC should "work" with the ACC to preserve four games the ACC wants to play, when the ACC unilaterally canceled four games vs the SEC without any such consideration, is just not thinking clearly. It's a pretty selfish stance that shows no regard for one's conference mates.

The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 05:55 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Apparently they do not care - you’re right about that. Which is what I’m getting at. It’s embarrassing and they should be ashamed of themselves for not wanting to find a way to make it work

IMO, anyone who thinks the SEC should "work" with the ACC to preserve four games the ACC wants to play, when the ACC unilaterally canceled four games vs the SEC without any such consideration, is just not thinking clearly. It's a pretty selfish stance that shows no regard for one's conference mates.

The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, anyone who thinks the SEC should "work" with the ACC to preserve four games the ACC wants to play, when the ACC unilaterally canceled four games vs the SEC without any such consideration, is just not thinking clearly. It's a pretty selfish stance that shows no regard for one's conference mates.

The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office. I’m also pretty steamed at the presidents of UF, UGA, and UK because it sounds like they barely fought it

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Don’t worry I’m equally as mad at those three schools for laying down. But let’s be honest, It’s a giant slap in the face. And from what I understand it was done primarily or at least in large part to avoid paying buyouts to other G5 and FCS teams.

Of course other schools have been on the negative end of decisions over the years but I can’t think of anything remotely similar. This is a conference telling a school that they cannot play a game that they want to play even though it doesn’t run afoul of any NCAA rule and there are available weeks to play (September 5, 12, or 19). All that had to be done was allow an exception and everyone could

Maybe legislators will get involved or maybe it’ll work out some other way but personally, at this point I hope the entire season just gets cancelled and none of these other games get played at all. And we can just play a normal schedule in 2021

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Yes, the idea that somehow the league had it in for South Carolina is pretty bizarro. This was a decision made by all 14 schools for the collective good.

I mean, here in Baton Rouge, LSU was supposed to host freaking Texas for crying out loud, a game guaranteed to pack 102,000 people in and make them bucketloads of money, and poof it's now gone.

And no whining, because the decision to play 10 and no OOC was judged to be best by the majority of the conference.

In fairness to SC, the comments from their administrators have all been of the "man up" variety, expressing disappointment that the game won't be played but supporting the SEC decision.

(08-01-2020 02:52 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Don’t worry I’m equally as mad at those three schools for 1.laying down. But let’s be honest, 2.It’s a giant slap in the face. And from what I understand3. it was done primarily or at least in large part to avoid paying buyouts to other G5 and FCS teams.

Of course other schools have been on the negative end of decisions over the years but 4. I can’t think of anything remotely similar. [b5. ]This is a conference telling a school that they cannot play a game that they want to play even though it doesn’t run afoul of any NCAA rule and there are available weeks to play [/b](September 5, 12, or 19). All that had to be done was allow an exception and everyone could

Maybe legislators will get involved or maybe it’ll work out some other way but personally, at this point 6.I hope the entire season just gets cancelled and none of these other games get played at all. And we can just play a normal schedule in 2021

1. Georgia, Kentucky and Florida didn't lie down. The looked at the data and voted what they thought was the best. This is how votes work and how educated men like college presidents reach a dispassionate decision. So in your anger you attack the reputation of 3 university presidents.

2. It's not a slap in the face as I have noted it's merely business and not one of the men in that room voted thinking they were insulting South Carolina.

3. Mutual avoidance of 13 schools having to pay buyouts because South Carolina wants to play 1 game is all about business and dollars and nothing else. It would have been unreasonable to have done what you wished. 13 independent universities don't bite a 5 million dollar bullet just so the Gamecocks can play Clemson and no reasonable person on any corporate board would agree with your position.

4. I can sure think of something similar. To accommodate South Carolina's entrance into the Eastern division in 1992 Auburn had to agree to give up annual games that had been being played for decades. We lost Tennessee and eventually Florida and had to keep Georgia as our permanent rival. Never mind that all of Auburn's historical recruiting had been done in Tennessee, Georgia and Florida in addition to Alabama and we had to retool to recruit Mississippi, Louisiana while we watched recruits from Tennessee dry up on the vine because they wouldn't be playing us yearly and eventually suffered a loss of recruiting Florida for the same reason.

And to add to that Gamecock when Missouri joined we were hosed by Alabama after having been promised in '92 that our move West was only temporary until the next additions. Alabama pitched a fit over losing Tennessee if Auburn had to be their permanent rival so Missouri in order to join agreed to move East. So there Missouri and Auburn both got hosed again. But Auburn lost the vote. The reason you don't know these things is in part because you are young and mostly because these forms of dirty laundry are not frequently aired after the votes.

5. This conference voted on what was best for the conference. That's the beginning, middle and end of this matter. What the NCAA would allow wasn't germane to the issue being decided.

6. This says more about you than it does anything else. We don't play only when we get our way and want to take our marbles and go home when something happens we don't like. The real world doesn't operate that way. Your employer doesn't operate that way. And likely your family doesn't operate that way. We all get sore about stuff, but schadenfreude is not an acceptable American concept. We are supposed to be a nation of free enterprise. We do what is mutually beneficial for ourselves.

By 2024 South Carolina will be earning 67 million dollars a year in media revenue while Clemson will likely be making around half that much. So what's the best business decision here? Accept the 1 year inconvenience for the sake of the long term positioning with regards to revenue, or pitch a hissy fit over one of life's curve balls? South Carolina will be light years ahead of Clemson in the next few decades as members of the SEC instead of being members of the ACC and really there is only one solution for insisting on being hurt and that is to use it as a reason to leave. I doubt there is a single administrator at South Carolina willing to take responsibility for leaving the SEC. And wishing the loss of revenue for a whole season upon your 13 conference mates because you didn't get your way on a single OOC game is not a reasonable position to take.

(08-01-2020 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:52 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Don’t worry I’m equally as mad at those three schools for 1.laying down. But let’s be honest, 2.It’s a giant slap in the face. And from what I understand3. it was done primarily or at least in large part to avoid paying buyouts to other G5 and FCS teams.

Of course other schools have been on the negative end of decisions over the years but 4. I can’t think of anything remotely similar. [b5. ]This is a conference telling a school that they cannot play a game that they want to play even though it doesn’t run afoul of any NCAA rule and there are available weeks to play [/b](September 5, 12, or 19). All that had to be done was allow an exception and everyone could

Maybe legislators will get involved or maybe it’ll work out some other way but personally, at this point 6.I hope the entire season just gets cancelled and none of these other games get played at all. And we can just play a normal schedule in 2021

1. Georgia, Kentucky and Florida didn't lie down. The looked at the data and voted what they thought was the best. This is how votes work and how educated men like college presidents reach a dispassionate decision. So in your anger you attack the reputation of 3 university presidents.

2. It's not a slap in the face as I have noted it's merely business and not one of the men in that room voted thinking they were insulting South Carolina.

3. Mutual avoidance of 13 schools having to pay buyouts because South Carolina wants to play 1 game is all about business and dollars and nothing else. It would have been unreasonable to have done what you wished. 13 independent universities don't bite a 5 million dollar bullet just so the Gamecocks can play Clemson and no reasonable person on any corporate board would agree with your position.

Reasonable? he seems to only care about what's best for South Carolina, and not even necessarily that, because IIRC I think he's said he wishes all games were now canceled.

If SC can't travel to Clemson and get gob-smacked by 40 again, burn the whole barn down!

That's not even pretending to be reasonable, IMO.

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, anyone who thinks the SEC should "work" with the ACC to preserve four games the ACC wants to play, when the ACC unilaterally canceled four games vs the SEC without any such consideration, is just not thinking clearly. It's a pretty selfish stance that shows no regard for one's conference mates.

The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

Not at all whining. Both the ACC and SEC positions can be justified business decisions given the risks from this pandemic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the ACC innovated with a +1 out of conference game.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference with rivalry games. The ACC tried to continue the college tradition.

(08-01-2020 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:52 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Don’t worry I’m equally as mad at those three schools for 1.laying down. But let’s be honest, 2.It’s a giant slap in the face. And from what I understand3. it was done primarily or at least in large part to avoid paying buyouts to other G5 and FCS teams.

Of course other schools have been on the negative end of decisions over the years but 4. I can’t think of anything remotely similar. [b5. ]This is a conference telling a school that they cannot play a game that they want to play even though it doesn’t run afoul of any NCAA rule and there are available weeks to play [/b](September 5, 12, or 19). All that had to be done was allow an exception and everyone could

Maybe legislators will get involved or maybe it’ll work out some other way but personally, at this point 6.I hope the entire season just gets cancelled and none of these other games get played at all. And we can just play a normal schedule in 2021

1. Georgia, Kentucky and Florida didn't lie down. The looked at the data and voted what they thought was the best. This is how votes work and how educated men like college presidents reach a dispassionate decision. So in your anger you attack the reputation of 3 university presidents.

2. It's not a slap in the face as I have noted it's merely business and not one of the men in that room voted thinking they were insulting South Carolina.

3. Mutual avoidance of 13 schools having to pay buyouts because South Carolina wants to play 1 game is all about business and dollars and nothing else. It would have been unreasonable to have done what you wished. 13 independent universities don't bite a 5 million dollar bullet just so the Gamecocks can play Clemson and no reasonable person on any corporate board would agree with your position.

4. I can sure think of something similar. To accommodate South Carolina's entrance into the Eastern division in 1992 Auburn had to agree to give up annual games that had been being played for decades. We lost Tennessee and eventually Florida and had to keep Georgia as our permanent rival. Never mind that all of Auburn's historical recruiting had been done in Tennessee, Georgia and Florida in addition to Alabama and we had to retool to recruit Mississippi, Louisiana while we watched recruits from Tennessee dry up on the vine because they wouldn't be playing us yearly and eventually suffered a loss of recruiting Florida for the same reason.

And to add to that Gamecock when Missouri joined we were hosed by Alabama after having been promised in '92 that our move West was only temporary until the next additions. Alabama pitched a fit over losing Tennessee if Auburn had to be their permanent rival so Missouri in order to join agreed to move East. So there Missouri and Auburn both got hosed again. But Auburn lost the vote. The reason you don't know these things is in part because you are young and mostly because these forms of dirty laundry are not frequently aired after the votes.

5. This conference voted on what was best for the conference. That's the beginning, middle and end of this matter. What the NCAA would allow wasn't germane to the issue being decided.

6. This says more about you than it does anything else. We don't play only when we get our way and want to take our marbles and go home when something happens we don't like. The real world doesn't operate that way. Your employer doesn't operate that way. And likely your family doesn't operate that way. We all get sore about stuff, but schadenfreude is not an acceptable American concept. We are supposed to be a nation of free enterprise. We do what is mutually beneficial for ourselves.

By 2024 South Carolina will be earning 67 million dollars a year in media revenue while Clemson will likely be making around half that much. So what's the best business decision here? Accept the 1 year inconvenience for the sake of the long term positioning with regards to revenue, or pitch a hissy fit over one of life's curve balls? South Carolina will be light years ahead of Clemson in the next few decades as members of the SEC instead of being members of the ACC and really there is only one solution for insisting on being hurt and that is to use it as a reason to leave. I doubt there is a single administrator at South Carolina willing to take responsibility for leaving the SEC. And wishing the loss of revenue for a whole season upon your 13 conference mates because you didn't get your way on a single OOC game is not a reasonable position to take.

You aren’t going to convince me otherwise but that’s OK. You don’t live in this rivalry so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t get it

I’m looking forward to the 2021 season

(08-01-2020 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:52 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don’t think money was nearly the motivation for the S.C. and Clemson games as you’re asserting. It’s about pride. I was initially quite mad at our leadership for agreeing to this but from what I found out yesterday we were willing to pay full buyouts to Wofford, ECU, and Coastal (which was In the neighborhood of $4 million dollars) in order to keep the road game against Clemson.

Our fans are very angry and IMO justifiably so. It’s a slap in the face from the league office.

It is not a slap in the face by the league office. It is a decision reach by vote in a conference where 3/4's or more of those voting determine the course of action. The league didn't slap South Carolina in the face. It held a business meeting voted 13-1 and moved on. This is how all business is conducted in the conference and over the years Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools, L.S.U., Arkansas, and Vanderbilt have all been on the losing end of a vote, and if I'm not mistaken I think it has happened to Alabama at least once and possibly twice.

Nobody has ever groused about it as much however as South Carolina. If Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida had voted with you there would be a game. They did not and that's the end of the story businesswise. If you got slapped in the face it wasn't by Greg Sankey as he has no vote. It wasn't by the schools who don't play an ACC rivalry game because they are only interested in COVID protocols being limited to the conference, it was by Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida all who disagreed with you.

The rationale that I understand all too well is the canceling of a game that has historically been played since the inception of football at both schools in South Carolina. When Georgia Tech left independence and joined the ACC they, to accommodate ACC scheduling, dropped the series that had gone on with Auburn since 1892 making it the longest running rivalry in the South with two years during WWII being excepted as Auburn didn't field a team. The two schools are 90 miles apart, both centered around engineering, and the stories around the series are hilarious. It was a great rivalry that should never have died, but it did. So that's what I understand. What I don't understand is the histrionics over a business decision in uncertain times made out of necessity and for reasons of control over preventing exposure, and made after the ACC dropped 4 of our games. There is no emotion in the decision and no vitriol toward South Carolina. The presidents voted and that's it. This is how 14 parties work things out, by vote. What the conference does expect after a vote is for everyone to man up, abide by the outcome and move on.

Don’t worry I’m equally as mad at those three schools for 1.laying down. But let’s be honest, 2.It’s a giant slap in the face. And from what I understand3. it was done primarily or at least in large part to avoid paying buyouts to other G5 and FCS teams.

Of course other schools have been on the negative end of decisions over the years but 4. I can’t think of anything remotely similar. [b5. ]This is a conference telling a school that they cannot play a game that they want to play even though it doesn’t run afoul of any NCAA rule and there are available weeks to play [/b](September 5, 12, or 19). All that had to be done was allow an exception and everyone could

Maybe legislators will get involved or maybe it’ll work out some other way but personally, at this point 6.I hope the entire season just gets cancelled and none of these other games get played at all. And we can just play a normal schedule in 2021

1. Georgia, Kentucky and Florida didn't lie down. The looked at the data and voted what they thought was the best. This is how votes work and how educated men like college presidents reach a dispassionate decision. So in your anger you attack the reputation of 3 university presidents.

2. It's not a slap in the face as I have noted it's merely business and not one of the men in that room voted thinking they were insulting South Carolina.

3. Mutual avoidance of 13 schools having to pay buyouts because South Carolina wants to play 1 game is all about business and dollars and nothing else. It would have been unreasonable to have done what you wished. 13 independent universities don't bite a 5 million dollar bullet just so the Gamecocks can play Clemson and no reasonable person on any corporate board would agree with your position.

Reasonable? he seems to only care about what's best for South Carolina, and not even necessarily that, because IIRC I think he's said he wishes all games were now canceled.

If SC can't travel to Clemson and get gob-smacked by 40 again, burn the whole barn down!

That's not even pretending to be reasonable, IMO.

Of course I only care about what’s best for South Carolina - why wouldn’t I? I am thankful that our president at least takes the same view

My biggest thing from the beginning is that there was nothing to lose from adopting a 10+1 model and I still maintain that.

I understand that my opinions are irrelevant to people in 49 states but it’s not necessarily a fringe position here and is in fact likely in the majority.

I’m not excited at all about this schedule and I’m having a hard time caring about it. I already called and cancelled my season tickets yesterday

(08-01-2020 03:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:44 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The comparison of the early season game cancellations, to end of season rivalry game cancellations is not appropriate. If you dig deeper into the argument, the defenders of the SEC position are non-sensical.

Folks are mentioning 4 early season ACC v SEC matchups. I remember 3 games scheduled: 1) Miss St @ NC St...the financial loser in cancelling this game is the ACC and/or NC St; 2) UVA v UGA neutral site kickoff game in Atlanta...even in +1 scenario UGA would have cancelled this game in favor of GT in Athens (canceling this game is financially net neutral to each conference and school...but it would have been advantageous to the SEC if UGA valued the GT rivalry game); and 3) Auburn v UNC in Atlanta...another net financially neutral game. If anything, in 2020 the ACC lost more financially, than the SEC, when the early season match-ups were canceled.

A minor beef that the SEC can make relative to the ACC actions is that they restricted the +1 OOC game to the State of the ACC university. This meant that Miss St @ NC State could have continued...this policy could have disadvantaged the SEC in scheduling other +1 OOC games versus the ACC.

Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

Not at all whining. Both the ACC and SEC positions can be justified business decisions given the risks from this pandemic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the ACC innovated with a +1 out of conference game.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference with rivalry games. The ACC tried to continue the college tradition.

I don't see so much honorable intention. The ACC crafted a rule that said all OOC games must be played in the ACC team's state. So "sure, we'll play you in an out of conference game but you have to come to our state, we won't come to yours".

That's a purely self-serving rule for the ACC. Heck, that sacrificed Notre Dame @ Navy, a very big rivalry in its own right.

(08-01-2020 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

Not at all whining. Both the ACC and SEC positions can be justified business decisions given the risks from this pandemic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the ACC innovated with a +1 out of conference game.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference with rivalry games. The ACC tried to continue the college tradition.

I don't see so much honorable intention. The ACC crafted a rule that said all OOC games must be played in the ACC team's state. So "sure, we'll play you in an out of conference game but you have to come to our state, we won't come to yours".

That's a purely self-serving rule for the ACC.

It’s was most likely done purely at the behest of the four schools with OOC rivals and Notre Dame, who is likely trying to get Navy go South Bend. It’s not like preserving NC State/Miss St was a priority

(08-01-2020 03:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

Not at all whining. Both the ACC and SEC positions can be justified business decisions given the risks from this pandemic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the ACC innovated with a +1 out of conference game.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference with rivalry games. The ACC tried to continue the college tradition.

I don't see so much honorable intention. The ACC crafted a rule that said all OOC games must be played in the ACC team's state. So "sure, we'll play you in an out of conference game but you have to come to our state, we won't come to yours".

That's a purely self-serving rule for the ACC.

It’s was most likely done purely at the behest of the four schools with OOC rivals and Notre Dame, who is likely trying to get Navy go South Bend. It’s not like preserving NC State/Miss St was a priority

Why would Notre Dame behest a rule that would prevent it from traveling to Annapolis, as scheduled? Notre Dame has never tried to screw over Navy before, and asking them to come to Notre Dame this year when it's Navy's turn as the home team would surely be just that.

The ACC rule sacrificed ND vs Navy, as historical a game as any of the other rivalries.

Going to take a break from this thread - I think everyone gets where I stand by now so no need to clutter it up anymore. Very sad and upset this week and hopefully an exception can be worked out late in the year if things align