Clemson Crossover Game

[AE 87]

On a lot of topics, I find that I agree with @Animal02 but disagree on this one. I don't buy the idea that we want the right to show we're the best team in the conference and in the country by removing difficult teams from our schedule. He may have a point about an undefeated P5 conf champ getting to the CFP, but if we were a 1 loss ACC Champ and our only loss was to CU during the season, then I think we'd have an argument too. We would either have beaten them in the ACC CG or beaten the Atlantic Division champs that beat them. If CU was ranked high enough, it would likely not be an eliminating loss, and if they weren't then we shouldn't have lost to them.

So, I say, look at the economics of having the CU game at home every other year.

 

[ClydeBrick]

Does anyone know why we did not play Clemson in the 1978-1982 seasons?

Probably because Clemson only won 7 of the previous 40 games going back to 1908 and Clemson had not been to a Bowl game in nearly 20 years so GT decided to drop them.

I assume that the only reason the series restarted was because we joined the ACC.

So, I say, look at the economics of having the CU game at home every other year.

According the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, there was an effort to show what this game meant economically back in the '70's when GT dropped CU:

In 1977, Georgia Tech, a year before it joined the ACC, decided to end its series with Clemson. George Bennett, a Clemson athletics booster, was determined to preserve the game, as the trip to Atlanta provided a unique experience for the Tigers players and fanbase who had not been to a bowl game since 1959. In what was supposed to be the final game in Atlanta, upon Bennett's suggestion, thousands of Clemson supporters paid their expenses with two-dollar bills stamped with the shape of a tiger paw. This demonstrated the large amount of money that the Clemson fanbase regularly pumped into the local economy because of the game.

 

[Animal02]

On a lot of topics, I find that I agree with @Animal02 but disagree on this one. I don't buy the idea that we want the right to show we're the best team in the conference and in the country by removing difficult teams from our schedule. He may have a point about an undefeated P5 conf champ getting to the CFP, but if we were a 1 loss ACC Champ and our only loss was to CU during the season, then I think we'd have an argument too. We would either have beaten them in the ACC CG or beaten the Atlantic Division champs that beat them. If CU was ranked high enough, it would likely not be an eliminating loss, and if they weren't then we shouldn't have lost to them.

So, I say, look at the economics of having the CU game at home every other year.

It is not simply removing a tough game from the schedule.......it is about playing on an even field. Yes Clemson in goo right now, and teams like Wake and BC are not. It will not always be that way. If the cross over games are rotated through evenly, it is a mater of fate / luck as to which team is good and which is not in any given year.

Goal number one should always be winning the ACC. We beat Duke, and lose to VT, Duke loses to VT. those are the only losses in the Division.......We play Clemson, while VT plays BC and Duke gets W.F.
Do you really want those games to determine the Coastal champion every year going forward. It is not a level playing field plain and simple.

 

[AE 87]

It is not simply removing a tough game from the schedule.......it is about playing on an even field. Yes Clemson in goo right now, and teams like Wake and BC are not. It will not always be that way. If the cross over games are rotated through evenly, it is a mater of fate / luck as to which team is good and which is not in any given year.

Goal number one should always be winning the ACC. We beat Duke, and lose to VT, Duke loses to VT. those are the only losses in the Division.......We play Clemson, while VT plays BC and Duke gets W.F.
Do you really want those games to determine the Coastal champion every year going forward. It is not a level playing field plain and simple.

I was responding to the CFP argument. I've said before that I want Division Record and Conference record to swap places in determining the division champ.

 

[Animal02]

I was responding to the CFP argument. I've said before that I want Division Record and Conference record to swap places in determining the division champ.

Unfortunately, under the current system, that is a sure fire way of locking the ACC out of the CFP. Let's have 2, two loss teams play in the ACCCG while 2, one loss teams sit home.
Swap Clemp for Duh U and do away with the permanent cross over.

 

[Squint]

I look at it this way: weak schedule or strong schedule, how often are we realistically going to make it to the CFP? So given that the average year we win 7 or 8 games, I would rather watch some decent matchups to some decent teams with bragging rights on the line (family and friends), than watch a "closer that it needs to be" game (or a butt whoopin') against a team that no one wants to talk about. Sure we all would love a championship! And I am falling into the slippery slope of assuming that bigger teams are more "decent", but in reality it boils down to being able to relate to those around you. Recruits and fans can relate to the teams around us, and that makes it fun to be a part of. The rest works itself out in time.

 

[AE 87]

Unfortunately, under the current system, that is a sure fire way of locking the ACC out of the CFP. Let's have 2, two loss teams play in the ACCCG while 2, one loss teams sit home.
Swap Clemp for Duh U and do away with the permanent cross over.

What year did that happen?

By the way, the same could happen in the current system with out of conference losses.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I just want to point out that Animal is at worst suggesting dropping ONE good scheduled game in order to better get a shot at playing TWO to FOUR better and even tougher games . . . one of which has a reasonable chance of being played against that tough team he is initially asking to be dropped. I say at worst because of course that game will still be replaced by another ACC game, sometimes with the same opponent being initially "dropped."

Regularly scheduled home/away vs CU versus "better shot" at Neutral site primetime ACC championship game, Neutral site primetime National Semifinal and Final, or Orange Bowl.

The basic counterargument to Animal, it seems to me, would be a version of "a bird in the hand is better than 2-4 in the bush." But still this isn't really in my opinion a debate that is as dramatic as this thread keeps making it out to be.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I just want to point out that Animal is at worst suggesting dropping ONE good scheduled game in order to better get a shot at playing TWO to FOUR better and even tougher games . . . one of which has a reasonable chance of being played against that tough team he is initially asking to be dropped. I say at worst because of course that game will still be replaced by another ACC game, sometimes with the same opponent being initially "dropped."

Regularly scheduled home/away vs CU versus "better shot" at Neutral site primetime ACC championship game, Neutral site primetime National Semifinal and Final, or Orange Bowl.

The basic counterargument to Animal, it seems to me, would be a version of "a bird in the hand is better than 2-4 in the bush." But still this isn't really in my opinion a debate that is as dramatic as this thread keeps making it out to be.

Yep. Animal makes a compelling argument, as I said before. In my opinion dropping an historic rivalry (yes, they qualify if you look at the history between the two teams) is too high a price to pay for an unknown return. They bring fans, money and a long history of good games whenever they roll into BDGF.

 

[bke1984]

All of this is assuming that Clemson is always going to be good, but it was already stated that this is not always the case. It is a perfectly fair system. I'm sure Wake was ok playing Duke back in 06 when they were bad, right?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Probably because Clemson only won 7 of the previous 40 games going back to 1908 and Clemson had not been to a Bowl game in nearly 20 years so GT decided to drop them.

I assume that the only reason the series restarted was because we joined the ACC.



According the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, there was an effort to show what this game meant economically back in the '70's when GT dropped CU:

Also probably had something to do with the fact that until 1977, all the games were played in Atlanta. Clemson probably wanted home-and-home, and in 1978 the powers to be at Tech weren't yet ready to do that.

 

[Skeptic]

Also probably had something to do with the fact that until 1977, all the games were played in Atlanta. Clemson probably wanted home-and-home, and in 1978 the powers to be at Tech weren't yet ready to do that.

I never knew that. Thanks. It was about that time that Clemson began with its NC aspirations as I recall.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I never knew that. Thanks. It was about that time that Clemson began with its NC aspirations as I recall.

Yep. 1981, wasn't it?

 

[Skeptic]

Yep. 1981, wasn't it?

Think so. In the mid '80s I was sent to a kind of banking conference in Atlanta -- my job has nada to do with banking, but the boss thought like bosses sometimes think -- and sat next to Jerry Stovall who had just been fired as AD at LSU and was working PR for a Baton Rouge bank. (I guess his boss thought he should know something about banking.) On his left was a Clemson guy who as I recall owned a metal fabricating company. He and Stovall, much to my surprise, talked very openly about what it cost to compete for championships. Don't remember the numbers so much as the booster talking about the "big checks getting bigger" or something like that. It was a bit after Charlie Pell had moved on to Florida but Clemson was in NCAA trouble. Regardless, I felt like a babe in the woods about this stuff. Never dreamed it could be like that, anywhere.

 

[Animal02]

Yep. Animal makes a compelling argument, as I said before. In my opinion dropping an historic rivalry (yes, they qualify if you look at the history between the two teams) is too high a price to pay for an unknown return. They bring fans, money and a long history of good games whenever they roll into BDGF.

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.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There is not a big difference...you can try to spin it any way that you want, but what you're suggesting is that we remove a tough team from our schedule so we can win one more game consistently.

Look, if that's really how you feel then that's OK. It's just your opinion.

I for one just want to see good college football games year in and year out. I think that if we have a team that's good enough to make the CFP then we'll probably make the CFP under our current schedule. I just don't see a reason to change it.

What do you think about changing the way divisional champs are decided?

 

[bke1984]

What do you think about changing the way divisional champs are decided?

I'm not that keen on that either, but it wouldn't upset me as much as dropping Clemson. I just think counting two less games from the record could lead to a scenario where the best team in the conference is not in the ACCCG.

The realignment listed above by Animal is actually my favorite proposed scenario so far. What's funny about it is that it that it's very close to a split back to the old ACC and Big East with an added Championship game.

My gripe is that the conference alignment thing just got out of hand. 14 (+1) teams in a conference is just ridiculous if you're only playing 8 conference games. I'm actually in favor of adding an extra conference game in place of the Alcorn State type games. Unfortunately it wouldn't work that way. We'd end up dropping the Tulane type games instead.

I understand wanting to win the CFP, but I really want to earn it by beating good/great teams. Two points here...1) When it happens, because I believe it will in my lifetime, I want there to be no doubt whatsoever that we were the best team in the country. 2) the best players in any sport are extremely competitive. I believe that stepping up to the plate to play a tougher schedule when possible will over time improve the program by garnering more national recognition and improving recruiting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'm not that keen on that either, but it wouldn't upset me as much as dropping Clemson. I just think counting two less games from the record could lead to a scenario where the best team in the conference is not in the ACCCG.

The realignment listed above by Animal is actually my favorite proposed scenario so far. What's funny about it is that it that it's very close to a split back to the old ACC and Big East with an added Championship game.

My gripe is that the conference alignment thing just got out of hand. 14 (+1) teams in a conference is just ridiculous if you're only playing 8 conference games. I'm actually in favor of adding an extra conference game in place of the Alcorn State type games. Unfortunately it wouldn't work that way. We'd end up dropping the Tulane type games instead.

I understand wanting to win the CFP, but I really want to earn it by beating good/great teams. Two points here...1) When it happens, because I believe it will in my lifetime, I want there to be no doubt whatsoever that we were the best team in the country. 2) the best players in any sport are extremely competitive. I believe that stepping up to the plate to play a tougher schedule when possible will over time improve the program by garnering more national recognition and improving recruiting.

Good luck with that. There are 128 FBS teams each of which plays a 12+ game schedule. You do the math. Btw, do you want to remove any of our previous MNC's that were decided by opinion? Heck, there's even disagreement on how many MNC's we actually have claim to.

The best way to decide a champion of so many participants is to have lower level champions decided by direct competition then have those champions compete on the field for the NC. That is what we are moving towards but it needs to be tweaked some. We can't even get the divisional champs decided w/o controversy, how can we expect to get a Natty Champ done?

 

[bke1984]

Good luck with that. There are 128 FBS teams each of which plays a 12+ game schedule. You do the math. Btw, do you want to remove any of our previous MNC's that were decided by opinion? Heck, there's even disagreement on how many MNC's we actually have claim to.

The best way to decide a champion of so many participants is to have lower level champions decided by direct competition then have those champions compete on the field for the NC. That is what we are moving towards but it needs to be tweaked some. We can't even get the divisional champs decided w/o controversy, how can we expect to get a Natty Champ done?

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.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

The people who want to drop Clemson want to do so because our road to the divisional crown is harder than other Coastal teams. If we beat Duke head to head and both of us run the table in the rest of the division, we could lose the Coastal to them should we lose to two really good Atlantic teams neither of which they play. How fair is that?

The first step in winning the NC is winning the division. If the divisional race isn't fair then the whole shebang isn't fair.

Make the division decided by Coastal record, then head to head, then conference record then, if need be, AP rank and all is solved.