Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Roy Nelson Willing to Pay for His Next Opponent's Drug Test

Super Bowl Sunday Thoughts

Nine conference games. Nine frickin conference games! This whole thing is spiraling out of control. First off, the ACC chose to invite Syracuse and Pitt. I really didn’t like these choices, particularly ‘Cuse. Now we get the Orangemen in our division which means another crappy in-conference game only this time our Tigers have to go to New York every other season to play a college football game in a dome. On top of all this, the ACC has chosen to require member institutions to play nine conference football games. This beams that Clemson likely will never play the University of Georgia after the home and home series concludes in 2014, if they get to play those games.

In an era of big time, big money athletics college football teams, Clemson included, make home football contests a priority. The schools largely don’t care who the opposition is so long as the stadium gates are open and tickets are sold. This is one reason colleges fork over large sums of cash to get relatively small schools to play meaningless football games without a home and home contractual requirement. These games are scheduled around the conference mandated contests. Hence, with the limit of a 12 game regular season, Clemson effectively loses one of these "at large" non-conference games. Clemson is also required to play South Carolina annually, which gives the Tigers two contests to schedule on its own. As previously mentioned, the school wants to maximize the number of home games and playing bigger schools almost guarantees sacrificing a home game every other year.

On top of the revenue, coaches will want to schedule two "gimmie" games outside of conference play. Playing a Georgia or an Auburn is not exactly Furman or Coastal. I would much rather schedule Georgia every season than have to play Syracuse. The SEC chose not to require member institutions to play more than eight conference games upon their expansion—which was the correct decision to allow the member institutions scheduling flexibility outside of conference play. ACC schools are handcuffed schedule-wise, another brilliant Swofford-led initiative.

National Signing day was relatively calm this season, which is fine by me. Clemson did a fine job maintaining its class which was largely sown up months ago. We discussed needs that were addressed as well as the class’ quality the day after signing day and will discuss the freshmen in advance of both spring and fall drills. This places another solid class under Swinney’s belt. We must give credit where credit is due. Props to Swinney and Scott for structuring this class and the rest of the coaching/support staff for hemming together the players.

Fortunately for me, I haven’t been paying as much attention to basketball as I have in other years. The bar was raised by Purnell and through Brownell’s first year at Clemson and I almost got used to our Tigers winning 20 and making the Big Dance. This season has been difficult—more difficult than most of us expected although we all realized that this team would face more challenges than those in previous seasons. We now that BB is a good fundamental teacher. We will see if he can, moving forward, get the puzzle pieces in place for success in our basketball conference.

Super Bowl Sunday…I really don’t care too much about the pro game, particularly since the Falcons have nothing to do with tonight’s game and the fighting Teebows are done son. We’ll see who gets rick-rolled tonight. I think it would be very amusing if (A) Eli doubles up Peyton on number of rings and (B) Tom Coughlin makes a solid case for the Hall of Fame. Speaking of the Hall, both Chris Carter and Bill Parcells were passed over. Nothing against Curtis "keeping it positive" Martin, but Carter definitely should roll in either with or ahead of him.

Comment 32 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

expanded conference

I will admit I liked the fact of playing 9 conference games until it may cost us dropping the Georgia games I totally agree I would rather play an sec team than syracuse or pitt I like the fact that we are scheduling 2 sec apponents a season I hope this super.conference bullshit doesnt mess up our old rivals. or us keeping 2 sec teams per.year on future schedules

by Mr Jordan on Feb 5, 2012 11:56 AM EST reply actions  

Conference scheduling

I had two questions:
I saw that we have a home and home scheduled with Ok. State at the end of the decade. Do we keep this or are we already trying to get out of it. The Big 12 also plays 9 conference games, but Ok.State’s rival is in-conference.
Finally, is it the home and home (because of the missed revenue) that will prevent us from playing quality non-conference opponents or the thought of another ACC opponent that will prevent us. Unfortunately, I see our strength of schedule being hurt by another ACC game instead of one more quality non-conference game.

by 007Tiger on Feb 5, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the 9 game schedules will influence other conferences to cut OOC games

more than ourselves, but the reality will still be that we won’t schedule many premier OOC games unless theres a big payday for it for both.

Everybody is going to end up with more in-conference games so this is inevitable.

by DrB on Feb 5, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't like the nine game schedule either.

Would not mind trading Ball State for Cuse but I don’t like giving up the ability to schedule big non conference games.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 5, 2012 1:31 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Is the 2-cupcake scheduling more due to the financial impact or the need for a fringe-Top-25 Clemson to bolster its record?

If it’s the financial impact then I wonder if it would really be impossible for Clemson to charge a bit more to maintain equal revenue (on the 2-year average) by replacing a relatively low-attendace annual cupcake with a (presumably) higher-attendance, more valuable, TV-worthy Syracuse game EVERY OTHER year. Wouldn’t most fans be willing to pay a bit more in order to drop one of the ridiculous cupcake slaughters? (I imagine there would probably also financial downside to the local hotel & entertainment industry, but I’m not sure if Clemson bows to pressure from local businesses.)

If Clemson were a truly tough, top-tier team that didn’t need to be bolstered by multiple cupcake wins, then it seems that, financially, Clemson’s administration could adjust the pricing in order to mitigate scheduling one less cupcake every year. I could be wrong. I’d love to see the numbers.

If you look at FSU’s scheduling since the NCAA went to 12 games, FSU has only scheduled 2 home cupcakes in about half the years, and has scheduled decent home-and-home opponents (like BYU, OU, CO, et al) in about half of the years, so apparently it’s not necessary for teams to schedule TWO home cupcakes EVERY year.

As an ’84 grad, I think it should be written into the state constitution that Clemson has to play UGA every year.

If you make me your king, I will outlaw cupcake games across all of D1.

by RazzMcTazz on Feb 5, 2012 2:52 PM EST reply actions  

It depends on what you are playing to win.

If you want a NC, schedule like NC teams do Bama, Florida, and Auburn do. 2 cupcakes. 1 to start the season and 1 before your rivalry game.

If you want to win a conference title, play Georgia and South Carolina every year. The reasoning here is you will probably lose one of those games every year. 1 loss may keep you out of the NC Game.

Tomahawknation.com is writing a story on scheduling later this month. I feel sure Bud and the boys will do a better job of explaining than I.

by sc_fsu on Feb 6, 2012 1:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I believe that if we really want to win a NC, then we will have to make the schedule tougher to make the team tougher.

You have to beat a grerat team to win the NC, and the way to beat those teams is to get experience playing them. Also, there are some teams we play every year that should be the next closest thing to cupcake teams (MD, BC, Wake). Not that we beat them every year, but we should beat them and those should be our easy games.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me try another way

Do you want to play 3 top 25 OOC games and 3 top 25 teams in the ACC. And then play another top 25 team in the ACCCG? That would be 7 top 25 teams in one year.

by sc_fsu on Feb 7, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Take a look at Va Tech '11

OOC Schedule:
App ST
Marshall
Ark ST
East Carolina.

I would say two of those teams are cupcakes. They lost to Clemson twice and still went to a BCS Bowl.

Now once we start having undefeated SEC, Big 10, Big XII, and ACC champions you may need to have a body of work to make the argument, but until then win all your games, be the conference champion and you will punch your ticket to the NC game.

by sc_fsu on Feb 7, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I think we should play a good schedule and take our chances.

We did not go to the NC game this year, but it was not because we sc heduled Auburn instead of SE Vermont State.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 7, 2012 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

So the Big 12 plays 9 Conference also?

Can we get some pros and cons for Clemson and FSU moving to the Big 12?
Of course past the 20Million divorce fee, thats kind of a given.

by EssoChay on Feb 6, 2012 11:10 AM EST reply actions  

Pro: no longer being bent over by UNC and Duke, plus more TV money
Con: being bent over by Texas and OU

I do not believe that any team with that big a footprint geographically will survive long term. It’ll last until Texas decides it doesnt need the extra TV revenue.

by DrB on Feb 6, 2012 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

So how exactly did the ACC come up with this format?

Did all of the member schools vote? Do you know what the other options were, if if they even considered anything else? I would not be surprised if it never happens, becasuse I could see the conference either expanding or falling apart before we actually had to play that schedule.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 11:18 AM EST reply actions  

The 9 game format is coming for most big time college conferences that have expanded

It’s done so that there are more conference $$ games for tv, which is the most important part of the whole discussion. While adding a 9th game hurts the overall OOC, especially at schools that a regional non conference rival, it will hopefully reduce the amount of cupcake schedules you will see out of the other schools.

The ACC did consider keeping the current model football schedule, but then you wouldn’t see schools from the opposite division as often as one game would be lost to the added divisional school. The only part of the scheduling change I like is going to 18 game conference schedule.

Don't give up, don't ever give up ~ Jim Valvano

by AParker on Feb 6, 2012 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

You mean the 18 game basketball schedule?

IMO, the real issue is who we are playing in the 9th game, as opposed to actually playing the 9th conference game. For example, if the ACC had added WVU or Notre Dame or some big name school, and that was the other game, then we would be excited. But, we are now stuck with playing Syracuse, and that is not going to excite a lot of people.

I really would like for someone to figure out if adding Pitt and Cuse will really help us negotiate a better TV deal, or if the ACC has screwed this one up. If that allows us to get SEC type money, then I am all for it. If not, then lets pack up and go to the Big 12 or SEC.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

More fantastic news

Click this link if you want to feel your stomach get queasy; they’re reporting an increase of 1-2 mil per team per year.
Say what!
So, we give up the big-boys on the schedule, get ANOTHER crappy conference game, AND get almost nothing in return. I can see Swofford and his cronies patting themselves on the back and smugly smiling at the rest of us for pulling off this coup. Just amazing the leadership in this conference.
Hopefully this report is WAY off base, but it looks legit. Has anyone else seen those estimates of around $30 mil for the SEC’s new contract? That won’t be pretty if that number is even close to being what they get.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/02/06/Colleges/ACC-TV.aspx

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut."
Ernest Hemingway

by DorchesterCat on Feb 6, 2012 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

There were just so many better options out there and the ACC blew it.

Their only chance at redemption at this point is to add Notre Dame, but that will not happen.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The way I read that is that the each team in the conference plus the conference itself will make roughly $14 mil a year from TV

So 14*15=210 million a year. If the commissioners office would back off of this a bit then maybe you could get about 15 a year. I agree the number is low, but then again I think the conference could play hard ball considering we just added two almost automatic NCAA tourney bids, plus just increased the TV viewership by 3-4 states.

I do think they screwed the pooch by not grabbing WVU or attempting to get a PSU or ND when they could. The ACC does span the eastern seaboard now, but is hurting on having quality programs. Lets just hope that Dabo, BB, & Leggett can start winning more games a year, then maybe Clemson can have more sway regionally and nationally.

Don't give up, don't ever give up ~ Jim Valvano

by AParker on Feb 6, 2012 4:46 PM EST up reply actions  

See, I do think they messed up by not bringing in a big name football school.

Maybe that is coming, but if Clemson is getting a heck of a lot less money than schools in the SEC or other conferences, then that will eventually catch up with us, and we will be behind the 8 ball. This is an arm’s race, and while Clemson’s brand may keep us competitive in the near term, we would eventually lose out over an extended period such as the term of our TV deal IF we did not have the same financial resources to put into our program as USC, UGA, Florida, ect.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 5:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Either eliminate

The set opponent from the other side or have only one other-side game. Who in their right mind would trade a UGA or Aubie game for Syracuse or Pitt? Basketball may be their beverage of choice, but football still stirs the drink.

by Smoked Pork Butt on Feb 8, 2012 5:28 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions  

sooo

this allows us to only be in control of ONE of our no conference games. the state requires us to play Sakerlina and one of the “lesser” teams from the state every year. So Swofford picks 9 of our games, Columbia picks 2, and we get to choose 1? Talk about the short end of the stick…

by PenthouseTiger on Feb 6, 2012 1:42 PM EST via Android app reply actions  

No kidding...

I didn’t realize we had to play a small SC school. Are you sure about that? seems like you’re right though – since ’05 or so.

I dont think its that big of a deal as long as we use the one game we have to play a quality opponent. Besides Sakerlina we never play more then one other quality OOC game anyway.

I would hate to see the UGA, Auburn, etc.. games go away and keep 2 cupcakes on the schedule.

by OrangeHallucinations on Feb 6, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, we have to play a small in-state school every year.

STS is right that the non-conference, home and home games will go away because we need 7 home games every year, and with a 9 game conference schedule, we would have six home games one year and seven the next.

Even years: 4 ACC teams, cupcake in-state team, USC
Odd Years: 5 ACC teams, cupcake in-state team, other half of home and home

Would we do this? Have no idea, but I doubt it. I am sure the local hotels and restaurants would rather have extra home games, and I do not blame them.

"Clemson is coming!" - Stephone Anthony

by Tigerplowboy on Feb 6, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess you're right...

if we always have to play 7 home games and an in-state SC team…that really sucks. Trading some of the great OOC games we’ve had / have scheduled to play syracuse every year is a terrible trade.

Guess the only option then would be to play neutral sites on years we have 7 home games, and getting an extra cupcake the rest of the time. sucks

by OrangeHallucinations on Feb 7, 2012 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation site about the Clemson Tigers. If you want to take a hard look at both sides of something, feel free to stick around and comment. Be forewarned, we don't pump sunshine here.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Thisone_small
TDP Interview
Img2_small
Clemson Expansion: Big Picture
Small
2012 RULE CHANGES = THE WUSSIFICATION OF FOOTBALL
Clem_brawl-736603_small
Bellamy
Clem_brawl-736603_small
The state of Clemson Football (long)
Small
First hand (sort of) experience with Batson's system
Small
Somebody gets it
Small
Clemson Basketball Recruiting Chart
Angels_small
Brownell & Kansas State
Collegecampus_small
Frank Martin to coach USC Basketball

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Bengal Tiger

Danny_ford_small DrB

Slick_small FIGUREFOUR

Persian Tiger

Tyree_helmet_catch_small ggggmen08

Small QuackingTiger

Sumatran Tiger

Sma_20clemson-tiger-w_20_2__small redbricktiger

Ellington_small Peter_G

Cj_spiller_heisman_small F1NS

Clemson-tigers-fans_the_wave_small SJTill