Clemson Crossover Game

[Animal02]

I'm not trying to say what we won before wasn't justified. I truly believe it was. However, even with the CFP the way it is there will always be someone that argues that X was better than Y. But it's tough for naysayers to do that when you go undefeated and beat a bunch of good/great teams along the way. It's easier for them to do that if you go undefeated against an average schedule and then get a lucky draw in the CFP. I'd love to claim it either way, but I'd really enjoy doing it against the best talent we can play.

I completely agree that the playoff is the best option for deciding the national champion. If they eventually move to an eight team playoff then all of this talk of realigning the ACC or dropping Clemson means nothing. You'd be able to get in as ACC champion with 2 losses at that point.

I disagree, you could easily have a 2 loss ACC champ get passed over for several one loss teams that did not win their conference division.
The only way to get the politics and emotions out of it is to have the 10 conference champs qualify......lowest 2 ranked teams play-in to an 8 team playoff.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The only way to get the politics and emotions out of it is to have the 10 conference champs qualify......lowest 2 ranked teams play-in to an 8 team playoff.

That leaves you with 9 teams for an 8 team format.

 

[Animal02]

That leaves you with 9 teams for an 8 team format.

lol......lowest 4..........(and my grades in Calculus at Tech reflect my math skills)

 

[dressedcheeseside]

lol......lowest 4..........(and my grades in Calculus at Tech reflect my math skills)

Just think, in your scenario, one of those final qualifiers would have to play a 12 game season, win a conference championship game, win a play in game, then win 3 playoff games!!! That's 17 games!!!

 

[gtzulu]

Dropping Clemson is the lazy solution to an overly difficult schedule. Bobinski should push for a change in ACC divisions that puts Clemson in our division, or get creative. The ACC is already allowing some future games between conference teams to not count as conference games. It's stupid, but why not take advantage of that and make Clemson a non-conference game? That would be better than dropping the rivalry. Failing that, what about temporarily reducing the rivalry to every other year, to reduce our schedule difficulty a little, until we can get Clemson into our division? Listen to your constituency, Bobinski, and find a way.

 

[AE 87]

I really don't get the point @Animal02 is trying to make beyond disparity between permanent crossovers isn't fair. I agree that disparity it's on par, but I guess that I don't see it as being as big of a deal.

As I see it, if we don't reach the ACCCG, we were probably not the best team in the conference anyway. The only recent year where this might have come up is 2013 where Duke finished 6-2 and where we were tied with VPI and d'oh U for 2nd at 5-3. While we beat Duke, we lost to both VPI and Miami. So, if we had played Wake or NC State or BC etc instead of CU, we would've been at 6-2 and won the tie-breaker versus Duke, but we still would've lost to two divisional opponents. Besides, d'oh U had to play FSU as their permanent cross-over.

As it stands now, the only team whose permanent cross-over is really a problem, imo, is VPI having BC. However, so far, it hasn't been that big of a problem since they've beaten us every time they've won the division. This year is probably close to the worst possible scenario since Duke gets BC in addition to WF and VPI gets NCSt in addition to BC while we get FSU in addition to CU. So, it could be that we sweep the coastal division and lose our two cross-over games while Duke and VPI go 7-1 and 6-2 in conference. So, while we would arguably be the best team in the Coastal, we would have already lost our opportunities to beat the best of the Atlantic. So, the issue seems to be more the getting to the game than being the outright best.

In my opinion, we were by far the best team in the Coastal Division in 2012. Our 5-3 conference record tied us with UNC and d'ohU, but we lost 2 of the 3 in overtime and the third (vs CU) was closer than the final score suggests. As it turns out, we still played in the ACC CG and lost by less than a TD to a very good FSU team. We could have easily been a 6-loss ACC Champ, and in today's system would not have been invited to the CFP. Even the 2-loss FSU likely would've been excluded.

So, it seems to me that getting to the CFP requires being considered one of the best four teams, and that includes both record and perceived strength of schedule. Keep it unfair against us and let us win would be our best chance, imo.

My idea is still that conferences realign the divisions every year, seeding based on the previous season and keeping permanent cross-overs as permanent opponents. Then top 3 ranked conference champs are in and next two ranked conference champs play-in.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

As I have said previously as well, it is not about dropping Clemson, it is about dropping the permanent crossover.
A simple realignment Coastal -GT, Clemp, VT, UVA, Duke, UNC, NCSU. Atlantic - UM, FSU, Lousville, Pitt, Cuse, WF, BC.
The only down side is travel distance for the Florida teams.

I could live with the realignment. I could also live with not counting the crossover game in the division race. When I framed my question, however, I was trying to gauge how people felt about dropping Clemson for the sake of making the schedule easier to get to a championship. In that kind of straight up choice my heart says keep Clemson.

 

[Animal02]

I really don't get the point @Animal02 is trying to make beyond disparity between permanent crossovers isn't fair. I agree that disparity it's on par, but I guess that I don't see it as being as big of a deal.

As I see it, if we don't reach the ACCCG, we were probably not the best team in the conference anyway. The only recent year where this might have come up is 2013 where Duke finished 6-2 and where we were tied with VPI and d'oh U for 2nd at 5-3. While we beat Duke, we lost to both VPI and Miami. So, if we had played Wake or NC State or BC etc instead of CU, we would've been at 6-2 and won the tie-breaker versus Duke, but we still would've lost to two divisional opponents. Besides, d'oh U had to play FSU as their permanent cross-over.

As it stands now, the only team whose permanent cross-over is really a problem, imo, is VPI having BC. However, so far, it hasn't been that big of a problem since they've beaten us every time they've won the division. This year is probably close to the worst possible scenario since Duke gets BC in addition to WF and VPI gets NCSt in addition to BC while we get FSU in addition to CU. So, it could be that we sweep the coastal division and lose our two cross-over games while Duke and VPI go 7-1 and 6-2 in conference. So, while we would arguably be the best team in the Coastal, we would have already lost our opportunities to beat the best of the Atlantic. So, the issue seems to be more the getting to the game than being the outright best.

In my opinion, we were by far the best team in the Coastal Division in 2012. Our 5-3 conference record tied us with UNC and d'ohU, but we lost 2 of the 3 in overtime and the third (vs CU) was closer than the final score suggests. As it turns out, we still played in the ACC CG and lost by less than a TD to a very good FSU team. We could have easily been a 6-loss ACC Champ, and in today's system would not have been invited to the CFP. Even the 2-loss FSU likely would've been excluded.

So, it seems to me that getting to the CFP requires being considered one of the best four teams, and that includes both record and perceived strength of schedule. Keep it unfair against us and let us win would be our best chance, imo.

My idea is still that conferences realign the divisions every year, seeding based on the previous season and keeping permanent cross-overs as permanent opponents. Then top 3 ranked conference champs are in and next two ranked conference champs play-in.

There are actually several separate issues mixing as one.

1. Goal of getting into the CFP.
The simplest way will be to go undefeated and win the ACCCG. The selection committee will not pass over an undefeated P5 conference champion in favor of a 1 loss non conference champion. (Exceptions......you schedule a FCS or 2 and non P5 teams for OoC......or all 5 P5 conferences have a undefeated champion) There is absolutely no way the selection committee will pass by an undefeated conference champion unless they wish to dissolve the CFP.

2. Goal of playing in the ACC CG
This is an obvious goal every year. Tech (nor any other team) should be handicapped or given a leg up year in and year out by having a strong or weak permanent cross over. Every team has its ups and down....that usually run in streaks, rotating through the other division is the only way to make it fair for all teams involved. Dropping the permanent cross over will also mean seeing all teams more frequently.......going to a 9 (or even 10) game conference schedule will increase that frequency even more.

3. Goal of getting an ACC team into the CFP
Currently there are 3-4 perceived top teams in each division. 2 play 2 from the other division every year, so the odds of a potential CFP team getting defeated are greatly increased.

4.Dropping Clemson just to have an easier schedule.
I do not think anyone is really in favor of this, and this is far different than dropping the permanent cross over to restore balance to the drive to the division championship.

5. Strength of schedule
Much has been said about the in conference strength of schedule. Strength of in conference opponents will not be a factor since teams have no decision in who they play until you are talking 2 losses. OoC schedule will definitely be a factor.

6.Rivalry
I never saw Clemson as a "rival" like UGA when I was at Tech. ND and Auburn had far more "history" The only reason we have played Clemson so much is because the ACC determined it to be so. As others have pointed out, Tech was ready to drop them completely.

 

[Animal02]

Just think, in your scenario, one of those final qualifiers would have to play a 12 game season, win a conference championship game, win a play in game, then win 3 playoff games!!! That's 17 games!!!

I know......but how else are you going to do it unless you drop a game during the season? Reduce the number of conferences? Keep a couple of conferences out of the big dance?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There are actually several separate issues mixing as one.

1. Goal of getting into the CFP.
The simplest way will be to go undefeated and win the ACCCG. The selection committee will not pass over an undefeated P5 conference champion in favor of a 1 loss non conference champion. (Exceptions......you schedule a FCS or 2 and non P5 teams for OoC......or all 5 P5 conferences have a undefeated champion) There is absolutely no way the selection committee will pass by an undefeated conference champion unless they wish to dissolve the CFP.

2. Goal of playing in the ACC CG
This is an obvious goal every year. Tech (nor any other team) should be handicapped or given a leg up year in and year out by having a strong or weak permanent cross over. Every team has its ups and down....that usually run in streaks, rotating through the other division is the only way to make it fair for all teams involved. Dropping the permanent cross over will also mean seeing all teams more frequently.......going to a 9 (or even 10) game conference schedule will increase that frequency even more.

3. Goal of getting an ACC team into the CFP
Currently there are 3-4 perceived top teams in each division. 2 play 2 from the other division every year, so the odds of a potential CFP team getting defeated are greatly increased.

4.Dropping Clemson just to have an easier schedule.
I do not think anyone is really in favor of this, and this is far different than dropping the permanent cross over to restore balance to the drive to the division championship.

5. Strength of schedule
Much has been said about the in conference strength of schedule. Strength of in conference opponents will not be a factor since teams have no decision in who they play until you are talking 2 losses. OoC schedule will definitely be a factor.

6.Rivalry
I never saw Clemson as a "rival" like UGA when I was at Tech. ND and Auburn had far more "history" The only reason we have played Clemson so much is because the ACC determined it to be so. As others have pointed out, Tech was ready to drop them completely.

We have been playing Clemson since 1898, long before the ACC was even thought of. So to say that the ACC determined it to be so is wrong. Now we did drop them for five years in the late 70s when they wanted to go home and home, but when we joined the ACC, they came back on the schedule and have been there ever since. Regardless of whether you saw them as a rival or not, they have been a natural rival for more than 100 years.

 

[Animal02]

We have been playing Clemson since 1898, long before the ACC was even thought of. So to say that the ACC determined it to be so is wrong. Now we did drop them for five years in the late 70s when they wanted to go home and home, but when we joined the ACC, they came back on the schedule and have been there ever since. Regardless of whether you saw them as a rival or not, they have been a natural rival for more than 100 years.

No different than Duke........does anyone see them as a real rival in Football?

 

[GTJoeBrew]

No different than Duke........does anyone see them as a real rival in Football?

They did beat us last year... So yes, to me they are for this season at least.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

No different than Duke........does anyone see them as a real rival in Football?

Nobody considers Duke a rival now, but they once were. Actually, Clemson is probably more of a rival now than they were 50 years ago, because we used to beat them almost every year. Since the 70s though, there have been some really good games, and to get rid of them for any reason now makes no sense at all.

 

[Animal02]

Nobody considers Duke a rival now, but they once were. Actually, Clemson is probably more of a rival now than they were 50 years ago, because we used to beat them almost every year. Since the 70s though, there have been some really good games, and to get rid of them for any reason now makes no sense at all.

And they are a "rival" now because the ACC made it that way. If the permanent cross over had been WF or BC etc, Clemson would be no different than FSU or NCST etc.

 

[ClydeBrick]

We have been playing Clemson since 1898, long before the ACC was even thought of. So to say that the ACC determined it to be so is wrong. Now we did drop them for five years in the late 70s when they wanted to go home and home, but when we joined the ACC, they came back on the schedule and have been there ever since. Regardless of whether you saw them as a rival or not, they have been a natural rival for more than 100 years.

The history of GT-Clemson does go back over 100 years, but in my opinion, it was not a "rivalry" until we started to play them in the ACC. Prior to the ACC era, I believe that the GT-Clemson game was a OOC warmup for GT like the FCS teams we schedule now:

GT played Clemson annually in the early days, took most of the 1920's off, 5 times in the 1930's and 3 times each in the 1940's & 1950's. Starting in 1908 Clemson only scored more than 14 points only three times in games that Clemson lost - now that was a different era for offense (and defense!) but GT scored more than 14 points 26 times in games GT won over that same time. GT's record vs. Clemson 1908 to 1977: 33-5-1

Additionally, starting in the 1962 when GT played them annually again, it was in the early part of the season. Maybe this wasn't the case back then but early part of the season = "tune-up" games.

Even though that part of the 1962+ annual game series was during Clemson's "Dodd" (Howard) years Clemson was still not that great of a team. GT was 12-3-1 (since 1961) when GT dropped Clemson. It wasn't until Danny Ford arrived (and Clemson started cheating) that Clemson got on the map as a "big boy" program.


These are my take on the facts of the record books. I am not old enough to of followed GT football during any time other than the ACC era.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

And they are a "rival" now because the ACC made it that way. If the permanent cross over had been WF or BC etc, Clemson would be no different than FSU or NCST etc.

Actually, even though we don't play them often, I consider FSU a rival also. Wake? BC? NCSU? Nope, never have been; never will be.

 

[AE 87]

There are actually several separate issues mixing as one.

1. Goal of getting into the CFP.
The simplest way will be to go undefeated and win the ACCCG. The selection committee will not pass over an undefeated P5 conference champion in favor of a 1 loss non conference champion. (Exceptions......you schedule a FCS or 2 and non P5 teams for OoC......or all 5 P5 conferences have a undefeated champion) There is absolutely no way the selection committee will pass by an undefeated conference champion unless they wish to dissolve the CFP.

2. Goal of playing in the ACC CG
This is an obvious goal every year. Tech (nor any other team) should be handicapped or given a leg up year in and year out by having a strong or weak permanent cross over. Every team has its ups and down....that usually run in streaks, rotating through the other division is the only way to make it fair for all teams involved. Dropping the permanent cross over will also mean seeing all teams more frequently.......going to a 9 (or even 10) game conference schedule will increase that frequency even more.

3. Goal of getting an ACC team into the CFP
Currently there are 3-4 perceived top teams in each division. 2 play 2 from the other division every year, so the odds of a potential CFP team getting defeated are greatly increased.

4.Dropping Clemson just to have an easier schedule.
I do not think anyone is really in favor of this, and this is far different than dropping the permanent cross over to restore balance to the drive to the division championship.

5. Strength of schedule
Much has been said about the in conference strength of schedule. Strength of in conference opponents will not be a factor since teams have no decision in who they play until you are talking 2 losses. OoC schedule will definitely be a factor.

6.Rivalry
I never saw Clemson as a "rival" like UGA when I was at Tech. ND and Auburn had far more "history" The only reason we have played Clemson so much is because the ACC determined it to be so. As others have pointed out, Tech was ready to drop them completely.

Thanks, but I was apparently unclear. I get the whole "unfair in theory" stuff. I'm just saying that when it actually comes down to what happens on the field, the "leg-up" really isn't that significant in my opinion. That's why I took the time to talk about actual situations with actual outcomes. I was wanting to understand what scenario, given our current situation, you would be concerned with us getting left out of the ACC CG? Also, with respect to your point 2, what's your argument again against swapping Division Record and Conference Record in determining Division champs?

 

[DH9387]

And they are a "rival" now because the ACC made it that way. If the permanent cross over had been WF or BC etc, Clemson would be no different than FSU or NCST etc.

Even if the rivalry was "created" by the ACC, that doesn't mean that it isn't a real rivalry. The younger fans consider it to be the second most important game of the year. I actually have more fun with it than with our "real" rival ugag, due to the fact that I have such an incredible hatred for the mutts. In fact, most younger fans consider VT, and to an extent Miami, to be rivals as well.

I understand and can even support your belief that the permanent cross division rivalries are not fair, but please realize that everything you are saying about what Clemson is or isn't is purely your opinion. You can provide numbers and history lessons all day long, but the fact is rivalries are not objective things. They are almost purely emotional and therefore can really be only looked at in subjective terms.

So feel free to continue to discuss the ways to fix an unfair scheduling system, but please quit insinuating that just because you don't feel that Clemson is a rival that no one else does. There are thousands of younger fans that consider that game to be an integral part of the football season.

 

[Animal02]

Thanks, but I was apparently unclear. I get the whole "unfair in theory" stuff. I'm just saying that when it actually comes down to what happens on the field, the "leg-up" really isn't that significant in my opinion. That's why I took the time to talk about actual situations with actual outcomes. I was wanting to understand what scenario, given our current situation, you would be concerned with us getting left out of the ACC CG? Also, with respect to your point 2, what's your argument again against swapping Division Record and Conference Record in determining Division champs?

Simple Scenario - We beat Duke, lose to VT, Duke beats VT all three teams win their in division games and non permanent cross over game. That leaves the cross over game as the deciding factor.....We play Clemson, VT play BC and Duke plays WF (or exchange UNC and NCST). If is was simply a matter of luck of rotation, you take what ever team you get, but Tech is at a disadvantage EVERY year compared to the rest of the division. Winning the ACC CG more often will have far greater advantages than simply playing Clemson every year.

I do not think using the Division record as the determining factor is a good idea. You could potentially have a 3 loss team play ahead of a 1 loss team.

 

[Animal02]

Even if the rivalry was "created" by the ACC, that doesn't mean that it isn't a real rivalry. The younger fans consider it to be the second most important game of the year. I actually have more fun with it than with our "real" rival ugag, due to the fact that I have such an incredible hatred for the mutts. In fact, most younger fans consider VT, and to an extent Miami, to be rivals as well.

I understand and can even support your belief that the permanent cross division rivalries are not fair, but please realize that everything you are saying about what Clemson is or isn't is purely your opinion. You can provide numbers and history lessons all day long, but the fact is rivalries are not objective things. They are almost purely emotional and therefore can really be only looked at in subjective terms.

So feel free to continue to discuss the ways to fix an unfair scheduling system, but please quit insinuating that just because you don't feel that Clemson is a rival that no one else does. There are thousands of younger fans that consider that game to be an integral part of the football season.

What a silly claim......that is your opinion........I could say the exact same thing.....please quit insisting it is simply because you feel it is.

BTW......any team consistently on the schedule is a "rival" The fact is there are only a couple of teams that continue to carry the long term rivalry whether we were to play them or not. Clemson is not one of them
If we quit playing Clemson every year, in a decade there would be the same (few) amount of people crying over it as there are about Auburn, Bama, etc. etc.