Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    559
    FSU doesn't need to develop a rivalry with every school in the conference but it can develop one with VT, Clemson, Louisville, etc... and already has one with Miami. Besides, if FSU can't get up for a game with WFU (a supposedly middling football program that has beaten them several times in the last few years) then they aren't really interested in football, they're interested in hype. Anyway... your original contention was that bad football was the main problem with the ACC. My point is that there is plenty of evidence suggesting football can be improved, drastically, in the ACC should the conference make the decision to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    FSU will never develop a rivalry with Wake - it's been how many years and that still hasn't happened. Duke, Wake, Syracuse, and BC - they are all no-win scenarios. If FSU wins, it's because they are supposed to. If FSU loses, it's not a loss in a hard-fought rivalry game, it's because FSU screwed up.

    The ACC is second-rate in football because it has too many small, privat(ish) schools with small stadiums (or no stadium), and small fanbases. The academic reputation is a great benefit and it doesn't seem to matter in basketball, but a few more buck from a TV network won't change any of those factors for football.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Maroon Baboon View Post
    Playing Clemson and FSU as infrequently as we do now is already a problem. Enlarging the conference just makes it worse.
    VT's annual blockbuster vs. BC is what we get. I can't imagine any school that is less like VT, yet they are our cross-division 'rival'. Maybe VT wants that, I don't know. But wouldn't it make more sense for VT and Clemson to be x-rivals? Is the ACC protecting the GT-Clemson game for historical reasons? How about we inherit Louisville and let the Hoos fly to Boston every other year?

    For a conference starved for revenue, you'd think VT-Clemson would be a no-brainer. GT fans (and I know there are some good ones) quite frankly don't deserve that game. Even for big games you can walk up and pay face for good seats at BBS@GF. Plus, they get Georgia OOC every year. We got bupkis.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Hokie View Post
    OK, maybe Wake isn't quite as crappy for FSU, but do either move the needle for FSU fans?
    If Wake, a team that beat them three of the past six years, isn't "moving the needle" for FSU fans, then what will?
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    September 03, 2002
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    VT's annual blockbuster vs. BC is what we get. I can't imagine any school that is less like VT, yet they are our cross-division 'rival'. Maybe VT wants that, I don't know. But wouldn't it make more sense for VT and Clemson to be x-rivals? Is the ACC protecting the GT-Clemson game for historical reasons? How about we inherit Louisville and let the Hoos fly to Boston every other year?

    For a conference starved for revenue, you'd think VT-Clemson would be a no-brainer. GT fans (and I know there are some good ones) quite frankly don't deserve that game. Even for big games you can walk up and pay face for good seats at BBS@GF. Plus, they get Georgia OOC every year. We got bupkis.
    I agree and often have said that the ACC needs to schedule smarter (particularly increase the # of VT vs FSU/Clemson games). That being said, from what I can tell the GT/Clemson game does have a bit of history/rivalry to it, enough to make it hard to drop. If the ACC is smart they'll make Louisville our cross division rival and pair up BC,Cuse, Pitt and UVA somehow. Maybe some poetic justice for all those hoos who wanted Syracuse instead of VT.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    September 23, 2002
    Posts
    17,570
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    This is nice, but it really doesn't address the ACC's biggest problem: bad football. The ACC has, in any year, 3-4 schools that create a decent matchup. VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU, sometimes UNC and NCSU. GT maybe. That's what bothers FSU so much. Duke, Wake, BC, Pitt, UVa, and Syracuse won't ever be big time imo. How many years of success will it take for Louisville to be a truly interesting football opponent?

    Conference TV revenue is significant, but what really pays the bills are alumni donations and ticket sales. If Louisville hits a rough spot, and Pitt and Syracuse just continue to be who they are, has the ACC simply padded an already soft (and largely uninteresting) lineup?

    Let's hope Notre Dame comes on board full time, and Louisville takes off in football. Otherwise, we'll end up with too many home schedules that look like, well, VT's 2013 schedule.
    I understand your point here and it's definitely the current conventional wisdom, but I have a hard time believing that FSU's core problem in 2013 is that the ACC is a bad football league. I mean, the ACC was a bad football league during the entire period of FSU's massive success. The league was commonly referred to as FSU, Clemson, and the 7 dwarves. (And for some part of that time Clemson, too, was a non-factor.) FSU's problem isn't that the ACC has a lot of bad football schools. FSU's problems are two-fold: 1) they haven't been winning their fair share of games against good teams from outside of the ACC and 2) they haven't even consistently beaten the bad teams in the league like they used to.

    Now, one could aruge that this was an inevitable consequence of playing in a mediocre to bad football league. That eventually they would start playing to the level of their week-in/week-out competition. But I think most people would agree that their decline coincided with Bobby Bowden's Long Goodbye. And that's because a "caretaker" approach to leadership doesn't work in modern college sports.

    Let's say Jimbo Fisher keeps re-building the talent base at FSU and they return to laying waste to a weak ACC, as they did throughout the 90's. Wouldn't that likely result in: winning ~11 games a year, going to Orange Bowls, winning 1/3 to 1/2 of their major bowl games, and sliding into the occasional national championship game? I don't think the weakness of the ACC (real or perceived) has held FSU back or will hold them back in the future.

  6. #26
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    FSU will never develop a rivalry with Wake - it's been how many years and that still hasn't happened. Duke, Wake, Syracuse, and BC - they are all no-win scenarios. If FSU wins, it's because they are supposed to. If FSU loses, it's not a loss in a hard-fought rivalry game, it's because FSU screwed up.

    The ACC is second-rate in football because it has too many small, privat(ish) schools with small stadiums (or no stadium), and small fanbases. The academic reputation is a great benefit and it doesn't seem to matter in basketball, but a few more buck from a TV network won't change any of those factors for football.
    Funny that BC won the Atlantic Division 2 times and Wake won an ACC Championship in football. That's more than Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Maryland, and Duke who have all failed to play in an ACC Championship game.

    Wake is doing the best they can with the resources they have. They improved their stadium. They have a good coach. Duke is expanding their stadium and updating their football facilities after something like 80 years. Hopefully they are finally seeing the writing on the wall. Duke is a very wealthy school. They "have" the resources. They should be no worse than Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Could they become the "Stanford" of the ACC one day? BC's Alumni Stadium only seats 44,500. They are located in a professional sports town. They have been competitive most years since joining the ACC, more so than larger state schools like NC State, Maryland, and UVa. Syracuse's Carrier Dome seats close to 50,000. They have some football history. They have a loyal fan base in Upstate New York. Like most fan bases, they get more excited when they have a winning team on the field. They haven't had much to cheer for since Paul Pasqualoni was fired nearly a decade ago but have shown signs of life the past few seasons. In short, BC and Wake have probably done the best that they can do. I can't see either program doing any better than they already have. Duke and Syracuse have the resources to be much better than they have but so does Miami, UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Pitt.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    current conventional wisdom
    Conventional wisdom is king in this debate.

    Also, I feel like one's predilection to be "pro-SEC" likely correlates to geography. If you live in say... Georgia, or Alabama, and are constantly subjected to the incessant, bombastic SEC football indoctrination echo chamber, you probably start to buy in and are probably much more likely to think that conference lives up to its own hype and is where your school should want to be.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    September 23, 2002
    Posts
    17,570
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Conventional wisdom is king in this debate.

    Also, I feel like one's predilection to be "pro-SEC" likely correlates to geography. If you live in say... Georgia, or Alabama, and are constantly subjected to the incessant, bombastic SEC football indoctrination echo chamber, you probably start to buy in and are probably much more likely to think that conference lives up to its own hype and is where your school should want to be.
    Oh, I totally agree with that. I think all of this stuff about FSU being unhappy with the quality of the league is driven by the current reality/perception that the SEC is the alpha and the omega of college football. I think they probably have a fair % of fans who have the "we don't win enough anymore" blues and think that jumping to a more "interesting" conference is the panacea.

    I just think those people are kidding themselves. Beating the teams that they currently play is the more likely cure. Re super-conferences: while it's true that a rising tide raises all boats...what happens if you fall out of the boat? That's basically what happened to Tennessee over the last 10 years. You make a bad coaching hire or two and all of a sudden your stadium is 70% full. Even if you're a big-name program with lots of tradition playing in the uber-exciting SEC. When you're getting your butt whipped, people stop showing up. Do things get easier for FSU by moving to the SEC or Big Ten? Only for their accountants, and only for awhile.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    November 04, 2008
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    Oh, I totally agree with that. I think all of this stuff about FSU being unhappy with the quality of the league is driven by the current reality/perception that the SEC is the alpha and the omega of college football. I think they probably have a fair % of fans who have the "we don't win enough anymore" blues and think that jumping to a more "interesting" conference is the panacea.

    I just think those people are kidding themselves. Beating the teams that they currently play is the more likely cure. Re super-conferences: while it's true that a rising tide raises all boats...what happens if you fall out of the boat? That's basically what happened to Tennessee over the last 10 years. You make a bad coaching hire or two and all of a sudden your stadium is 70% full. Even if you're a big-name program with lots of tradition playing in the uber-exciting SEC. When you're getting your butt whipped, people stop showing up. Do things get easier for FSU by moving to the SEC or Big Ten? Only for their accountants, and only for awhile.

    Good summation of their situation

  10. #30

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    75,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    With all of those Newhouse School of Public Communications grads from Syracuse in the sports media, this guy could be very reputable. A lot of those grads work for ESPN.
    Agreed. It's entirely conceivable that whoever wrote that column has contacts inside ESPN that are feeding him info.

    If an ACC Network is announced, then I think it will shore up the conference's finances to the point where Clemson and FSU won't have any real reason at all to consider leaving.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •