|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1,145
|
Orange Blooded [4640]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 9549
Joined: 11/4/01
|
Question...Does anyone believe we are bluffing....
May 25, 2012, 10:00 PM
|
|
Allowing all this to stir on purpose to get what we want from the ACC? Very big ALL IN and a lot riding in the future...
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 914
Joined: 9/16/08
|
Re: Question...Does anyone believe we are bluffing....
May 25, 2012, 10:01 PM
|
|
Bluffing for sec invite
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 914
Joined: 9/16/08
|
Re: Question...Does anyone believe we are bluffing....
May 25, 2012, 10:01 PM
|
|
Bluffing for sec invite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94280]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95538
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No. You ain't bluffing when you hold the winning hand.***
May 25, 2012, 10:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1760]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1677
Joined: 12/8/98
|
I don't think so...
May 25, 2012, 10:09 PM
|
|
I think we're really trying to find what's best for Clemson based on the circumstances. I do, however, think that the circumstances are changing rapidly and what's best today might not be what's best tomorrow.
Is the ACC willing to discuss changes that improve our bottom line?
Is the Big12 the right move long term?
Is the championship going to be 4 or 8 teams?
Is the sec showing any interest? ( probably not )
What are other teams such as fsu or nd going to do?
So, I think we're positioning ourselves to be ok no matter how this whole realignment / playoff thing works out. We'd be wise to have options and not play our hand too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 914
Joined: 9/16/08
|
Re: No. You ain't bluffing when you hold the winning hand.***
May 25, 2012, 10:09 PM
|
|
Touché
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4265
Joined: 10/1/00
|
Re: Question...Does anyone believe we are bluffing....
May 25, 2012, 10:21 PM
|
|
Frankly, I would love to stay in the ACC if the situation were different, but it's painfully obvious to me where we are headed if we stay, and it's not particularly pleasant to think about. This is a conference whose commissioner is hell bent on turning this place into a roundball powerhouse funded by the folks that really generate the cash; the football folks. I know this sounds a bit simplistic, but it's been the same song and dance for I can't even remember how long.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of being the puppet of tobacco road. If we don't move now, then when? If they want to turn this into the best basketball conference the free world has ever known, then go for it!!! More power to ya'!!
Just don't expect to do it on our dime any longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26120
Joined: 9/9/03
|
which of the ACC's recent moves have been geared toward
May 25, 2012, 10:28 PM
|
|
making us a basketball powerhouse? miami? VT? BC? pitt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4265
Joined: 10/1/00
|
Uh, Syracuse, Pitt?????????
May 25, 2012, 10:30 PM
|
|
Tell me the last time either one of these were remotely relevant in football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26120
Joined: 9/9/03
|
of the last 6 schools added to the conference, only syracuse
May 25, 2012, 10:33 PM
|
|
can be considered a basketball school. certainly FSU, miami and VT are 100% about football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4265
Joined: 10/1/00
|
I can see you just want to argue, so....
May 25, 2012, 10:55 PM
|
|
FSU was added 20 years ago. They added something to the credibility of the conference bball wise, but added a lot more financially football wise. An endorsement to anything other than that is just wishful thinking.
Miami, good on paper and name, but frankly, irrelevant on the grand stage right now. No real draw whatsoever other than the brand name. Sad, but true.
Va Tech, great addition for generating revenue and God knows they have done that! I'll give you that one. Great addition for generating cash.
But for whom??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Uh, Syracuse, Pitt?????????
May 25, 2012, 10:43 PM
[ in reply to Uh, Syracuse, Pitt????????? ] |
|
For Pitt - it was about the same time that CLEMSON was relevant in football. 1976 National Champion - with Tony Dorsett.
That said - I don't even want them on our schedule. Nor SU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16342]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25415
Joined: 10/10/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24440]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26120
Joined: 9/9/03
|
i wonder what would have happened if the ACC had never added
May 25, 2012, 10:39 PM
[ in reply to which of the ACC's recent moves have been geared toward ] |
|
FSU in the early 90s and we had remained the only true football school in the conference. would we have continued to enjoy our status dominating a weak football league? would we be complaining about the ACC being a basketball league? we certainly have not fared nearly as well since adding more football schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16342]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25415
Joined: 10/10/06
|
its highly possible***
May 25, 2012, 10:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15138]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 21622
Joined: 12/31/02
|
Bigger question: does the ACC really care?***
May 25, 2012, 11:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Question...Does anyone believe we are bluffing....
May 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
|
|
Well, ACC just HAD the meeting and voted down all of the proposals to help the football schools. The "bluff" was called. Now it is time to show the cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1,145
|
|
|
50
