|
Replies: 32
| visibility 3557
|
Game Day Hero [4341]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
2
Aug 12, 2024, 9:46 PM
|
|
If Clemson has to stay in the ACC, they can still have a chance to get in the playoff every year of course. The main difference would just be the amount of money.
But, if teams like GT, BC, Wake, Duke, etc. can gain more relevance, money can increase and of course the ACC would definitely be strong enough for its champion to be in the playoff.
GT gained a 5-star OT commit today
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Phenom [14717]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
3
Aug 12, 2024, 10:15 PM
|
|
No problem staying in the ACC.
You said it yourself, the main problem is the $$$.
Since college football has become essentially professional, we need the funds to stay competitive with other high profile schools.
I'm pretty sure you were aware of all this. Sorry, old news.
Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [60130]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 61438
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
4
Aug 12, 2024, 10:55 PM
|
|
Clemson nor any other ACC team could remain competitive with the Big or the SEC until 2036. Honestly, I just can't imagine how utterly stupid someone would need to be to sign contract for that long without getting a raise. Nothing about that makes any sense at all!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5225]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
No and Clemson
2
Aug 13, 2024, 12:28 AM
|
|
Is gone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4341]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Re: No and Clemson
1
Aug 13, 2024, 1:12 AM
|
|
As a Florida fan, I would expect that you know when official declines will happen
We’re still ranked in front of you anyways
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [594]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: No and Clemson
2
Aug 13, 2024, 12:00 PM
|
|
I bet when you go to a visitors house you act like a jerk there too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4341]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Re: No and Clemson
1
Aug 13, 2024, 12:47 PM
|
|
what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5225]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: No and Clemson
2
Aug 13, 2024, 1:24 PM
[ in reply to No and Clemson ] |
|
###????
LIFELONG CLEM fan and IPTAY member and YES UF fan. Father has been in IPTAY 72 years. Been on TN since its inception and have gone to probably ± 400 games CLEM FB. 10 season tix and two parking passes. Current child there. I also have four season tix in the Swamp where I got my degree.
I'll compare my fandom ANY day...to ANYONE
Why the snarky response? I told you the TRUTH. UF has nothing to do with it. MULTIPLE PPL ON HERE HAVE TOLD YOU THE SAME THING.
Answer is NO and Clemson is gone. YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY ABT THAT ...if you are a CLEM fan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4035]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
4
Aug 13, 2024, 5:07 AM
|
|
I've been waiting for Miami, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, and Virginia to consistently be worth a poop again for a very long time. I'm not holding my breath on BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, etc. Although Georgia Tech is on the right path and is in a good recruiting bed, it's an extremely uphill battle with UGA, Clemson, and numerous other teams swooping in as well.
Seems the ACC is cooked if it wasn't for Clemson and FSU carrying this conference on a national level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3446]
TigerPulse: 97%
34
|
Nope.***
3
Aug 13, 2024, 6:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [56476]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
1
Aug 13, 2024, 7:01 AM
|
|
I believe GT will improve due to the NIL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5704]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
1
Aug 13, 2024, 7:07 AM
|
|
They've been doing it this way for 71 years..... why would they change now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [98673]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 97937
Joined: 2009
|
If there was any way Clemson was going to remain an ACC partner...
1
Aug 13, 2024, 7:11 AM
|
|
we wouldn't be discussing this now. Clemson is leaving the ACC and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. It's our school, our sports programs and our BOT's decision to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [74677]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 118504
Joined: 1998
|
Re: If there was any way Clemson was going to remain an ACC partner...
1
Aug 13, 2024, 7:30 AM
|
|
yeah we wouldnt be spending what we are on lawyers to stay in the conference. I just hope we more that save on the exit fees what the horrendous legal fees will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1048]
TigerPulse: 99%
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
There's no going back for Clemson.***
1
Aug 13, 2024, 7:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14085]
TigerPulse: 90%
48
Posts: 15165
Joined: 2004
|
Re: There's no going back for Clemson.***
1
Aug 13, 2024, 8:20 AM
|
|
Of the BC, Wake, Duke, Cuse, Pitt, and at least Wake and even more so Duke are putting a lot more into Football facilities.
Especially Duke seems to want to have a nationally good program in all athletics like Stanford except Football is more of emphasis that them out West. . Look what they have done with Wallace Wade Stadium and getting rid of the track around field, and the new football locker room is really nice that they just reopened. See on their site at link. Manny Diaz said during ACC Football Kick Off are going have their best football recruiting class ever this class.
The ACC can be better if those programs just put more in facilities and budget. Link:
https://goduke.com/news/2024/7/22/duke-unveils-renovated-locker-room-in-yoh-football-center.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14085]
TigerPulse: 90%
48
Posts: 15165
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [394]
TigerPulse: 100%
16
|
Re: There's no going back for Clemson.***
2
Aug 13, 2024, 12:25 PM
[ in reply to Re: There's no going back for Clemson.*** ] |
|
Of the BC, Wake, Duke, Cuse, Pitt, and at least Wake and even more so Duke are putting a lot more into Football facilities. Especially Duke seems to want to have a nationally good program in all athletics like Stanford except Football is more of emphasis that them out West. . Look what they have done with Wallace Wade Stadium and getting rid of the track around field, and the new football locker room is really nice that they just reopened. See on their site at link. Manny Diaz said during ACC Football Kick Off are going have their best football recruiting class ever this class. The ACC can be better if those programs just put more in facilities and budget. Link: https://goduke.com/news/2024/7/22/duke-unveils-renovated-locker-room-in-yoh-football-center.aspx
You haven't been paying attention to Cuse.
They look promising
The Dome upgrades are amazing.
No more benches seats...all individual seats
SOA wireless 5G
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4341]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Re: There's no going back for Clemson.***
1
Aug 13, 2024, 12:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: There's no going back for Clemson.*** ] |
|
But how?
They literally made a whole new revenue distribution system that prioritizes the most viewed teams. Which will always be Clemson and FSU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24892]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
Do you think lowly usc east will ever be anything in football ?
1
Aug 13, 2024, 8:15 AM
|
|
Nothing Since 1969
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
The ACC needs more big Brands
1
Aug 13, 2024, 8:19 AM
|
|
Only a handful of current members can quickly assume that position. With a successful season (or two) Miami could. UNC, VT, and GT maybe too but it would take 3 or 4 successful seasons in a row. And buy success I mean playoff appearances, playing an exciting style of football, and getting wins vs big brand opponents.
I don't see the rest of the ACC ever building that type of brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
Build or buy?***
1
Aug 13, 2024, 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14070]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23304
Joined: 2004
|
Nope, they won't develop
2
Aug 13, 2024, 8:40 AM
|
|
The fan base and the commitment aren't there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9971]
TigerPulse: 57%
44
Posts: 13079
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
Aug 13, 2024, 9:40 AM
|
|
The 3 keys to the ACC getting more money are SMU, Cal and Stanford because of their television markets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1568]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
2
Aug 13, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
I don't think regional TV markets are as important as they use to be. Back in the day (2000's) there were maybe 5 channels that you could watch College football on. Securing a spot on TV meant you had a significant increase in viewership and ad revenue. Now there are 10 channels off the top of my head that have coverage all day. You can watch Clemson vs Georiga Tech already in every state. The trouble now is not getting on TV, it is how do you get people to turn to your game. The Big 10 and SEC get about 5-9 Million people a game for their top games each week, the ACC got that for 1 game. Clemson vs Florida State. They need that every week and SMU, Cal, and Stanford won't help that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14070]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23304
Joined: 2004
|
Lol, no way
2
Aug 13, 2024, 11:35 AM
[ in reply to Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop? ] |
|
Television markets don't matter if nobody in that market gives a crap about the teams. BC isn't giving us the Boston market, Cuse isn't giving us the NYC market, and Cal/Stanford aren't giving us the Bay Area. That may have been the thinking 20 years ago, but that's not how it's actually working, especially now with the downfall of the cable bundle.
The SEC has done fantastically well despite having very little presence in any large metro areas (basically just Atlanta). Why? Because everyone in the markets they do have is 100% committed to CFB on a fanatical level. Nobody in Boston or SF care about CFB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8301]
TigerPulse: 96%
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1522]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
2
Aug 13, 2024, 10:26 AM
|
|
The biggest hurdle ACC has in developing teams is size of schools which extrapolates to total # of viewers. For 2023 in terms of viewer market value, only two of the top 25 most viewed games featured a current ACC team and they were both FSU. A current SEC team was in 12 of the 25 most viewed games and the same for Big10 schools. Even the Big12 had more Big12 schools represented in the top 25 most viewed games than the ACC did. So, its not just about the ACC cutting a better deal for more money. The ACC needs to bring more viewers or it will never get a better deal. It is going to be hard because the average ACC school is significantly smaller than the average Big10, SEC or Big12 school. This is hard for us rabid fans that don't miss a game to understand. Isn't everyone watching Clemson? The truth is no, most football viewers opt for other games.
It all comes down to market size. As an example: We love Clemson, but we need to face the fact that even with 3 national championships under our belt we represent a tiny viewer market as compared to Texas A&M with 70,000 students and a massively larger alumni population.
This is what the ACC is up against IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8301]
TigerPulse: 96%
43
|
"alumni base" is over rated. People watch teams that win, period
2
Aug 13, 2024, 10:36 AM
|
|
When Clemson was winning titles and destroying people like Bama, they were one of the most watched programs on the planet. Even last year Clemson was top 20 in viewership (nielsen ratings). The problem is, ACC schools, for the most part, could give two flips about football and will never be a consistent winner. So no one is going to watch those teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-98]
TigerPulse: 74%
-1
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
1
Aug 13, 2024, 10:51 AM
|
|
I would hope that other ACC schools increase their ‘footprint’ which will bring in more money, but that’s not likely. Even more not likely now than in the past just because the difference in revenue across conferences will continue to drive disparity in recruiting, coaching staff, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Re: Do you think lower ACC football programs will develop?
1
Aug 13, 2024, 12:40 PM
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23486]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 24240
Joined: 2003
|
The ACC had an much better window to do this in the 00's and 10's.
3
Aug 13, 2024, 12:47 PM
|
|
The answer is "no." The programs of the ACC has thoroughly chosen impotence despite the power moves by the administration to make the conference a behemoth. Miami, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, Boston College, etc... had their chances to elevate or stay elite. They all took hard nose-dives. FSU deserves a lot more credit than the rest... but their drop from prominence was terribly timed.
The BIGGEST blame goes to Miami. Virginia Tech was good when the rest of the conference descended into joke territory... but it is crazy the massive collapse of the ACC when we looked to be the premier football conference in 2004.
In 2003, Miami had finished 5th and nearly (bad call) won the natty the year before. FSU had won a natty a couple years before. Virginia Tech had climbed into the top 5 during in the middle of the 2003 season. Clemson looked to have turn a corner finally beating FSU, and going on a crazy run after the lip-quiver, finishing ranked and beat a #6 Tennessee team in the Peach Bowl.
In 2002 NC State and Maryland finished in the top-15, so their relevance was still on the radar.
In the 2004 Preseason AP poll the ACC had 4 teams in the top 16. 2 in the top 6.
A year later, ONLY the new additions (Boston College, Virginia Tech and Miami) were in the top 20 by the end of the season. So the administration was the only reason the ACC had a SINGLE top-20 team in 2005.
Then by 2006 the ACC essentially committed harakiri. Our highest ranked team was Weak Florist and they ranked 18th. Not a single top 15 team. We were officially a joke at that point.
Did the next year help? Nope. In 2007 the only top 15 teams were Boston College (10) and Virginia Tech(9). The old ACC completely died.
2008 was the same. Everyone sucked except Virginia Tech. And they were 15th in the final AP poll. Nothing higher.
2009 we barely cracked the top 10. Virginia Tech again. Paul Johnson's triple option Georgia Tech also cracked the top 15 that year.
And to finish off the death of the conference, in 2010, we didn't have a single team in the top 15. Again.
The teams sucked. The institutions themselves killed the reputation of the conference for a whole generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 3557
|
|
|
50
