Clemson Crossover Game

[Skeptic]

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.

I'm sure a lot of older fans agree. The distance is some 125 miles, almost all by I-85, and from the exit to the stadium is a quick and easy drive. Clemson travels well and helps Tech crowds. Frankly, with the way these two teams have squared off in recent years -- the Johnson-Swinney years -- it seems awfully shortsided -- and unprofitable -- to quit playing for any reason. Neither their fans nor our fans see the game as a gimme, nor anything but a donnybrook, and they almost always are. Had Watson stayed in last year that game would have been a classic. Hard enough to build a rivalry without tossing one out.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

You really wouldn't want to see Auburn or Alabama on a regular schedule?

 

[DH9387]

You are correct. That is my opinion, but you missed the entire point of my response. No matter which way you feel about the "rivalry," it is purely just an opinion. I respect that you don't feel that it is one, but that doesn't mean your feelings are better or more correct than any one else's on the topic.

 

[Animal02]

I'm sure a lot of older fans agree. The distance is some 125 miles, almost all by I-85, and from the exit to the stadium is a quick and easy drive. Clemson travels well and helps Tech crowds. Frankly, with the way these two teams have squared off in recent years -- the Johnson-Swinney years -- it seems awfully shortsided -- and unprofitable -- to quit playing for any reason. Neither their fans nor our fans see the game as a gimme, nor anything but a donnybrook, and they almost always are. Had Watson stayed in last year that game would have been a classic. Hard enough to build a rivalry without tossing one out.

Unprofitable? Talk about short sighted.......compared to the benefits of playing in the ACC CG which also equates to a better bowl game and possibly the CFP......insisting on the Clemson game is short sighted.

 

[Animal02]

You are correct. That is my opinion, but you missed the entire point of my response. No matter which way you feel about the "rivalry," it is purely just an opinion. I respect that you don't feel that it is one, but that doesn't mean your feelings are better or more correct than any one else's on the topic.

And you missed my point.......I never said my opinion was any more important than anyone else's.......unlike you....I have NOT told anyone to stop posting their opinion.

 

[Animal02]

You really wouldn't want to see Auburn or Alabama on a regular schedule?

I would love to do away with the FCS game and start scheduling another P5 team. Two non P5 teams and two P5 teams certainly would give a boost to the strength of schedule everyone is complaining about.

 

[DH9387]

And you missed my point.......I never said my opinion was any more important than anyone else's.......unlike you....I have NOT told anyone to stop posting their opinion.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I never meant to tell you to stop posting your opinion. I only wanted you to understand that what you are arguing about is purely your opinion and to point out that we can argue the legitimacy of the rivalry until we are blue in the face but that no matter what, no side is more right than the other. Which is why I wanted the discussion to steer back to how to fix the perceived problem and not the emotional subject of whether the rivalry is real.

 

[AE 87]

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.

OK, I actually addressed that scenario in an earlier post. With out of conference games, a 3 loss team can play ahead of a one loss team now. A 3 loss team could be the best divisional team.

 

[Animal02]

I'm sure a lot of older fans agree. The distance is some 125 miles, almost all by I-85, and from the exit to the stadium is a quick and easy drive. Clemson travels well and helps Tech crowds. Frankly, with the way these two teams have squared off in recent years -- the Johnson-Swinney years -- it seems awfully shortsided -- and unprofitable -- to quit playing for any reason. Neither their fans nor our fans see the game as a gimme, nor anything but a donnybrook, and they almost always are. Had Watson stayed in last year that game would have been a classic. Hard enough to build a rivalry without tossing one out.

I like the Clemson games......my point is the only reason that it is now considered a "big rivalry" is the ACC contrived "permanent cross over rivalry" Had they been on the rotation like the rest of the Atlantic, it would be no different than the upcoming FSU or in the future Louisville game.

I still think the best outcome would be switch Clemson and UM, and switch NCST and Pitt, and get rid of the permanent cross over games.
That keeps intact
Clemson GT,
UNC NCST,
VT UVA,
Pitt -Cuse,
FSU and UM

And Duke would get all the locals except WF.

 

[bke1984]

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.

OK...so in your scenario, say we lose. Now we have 2 losses in conference...even at a three way tie we don't have that strong of an argument for being the conference champion.

If you can't beat Clemson from the other side, why do you deserve to be conference champions? There are two scenarios: 1) Clemson is the best team from the other side and you lost...you don't get the chance to play them again in the ACCCG...there's a pretty strong case that you don't deserve to because you already lost and the other teams in your division have a stronger conference record. 2) Clemson is not the best team on the other side...and you lost. In this case, the handicap argument doesn't even add up, because they aren't the best team over there.

It's pretty simple in my eyes, btw. If you lose one conference game, you are going to be in the ACCCG most years, period. If you lose two conference games, the conference record is easily a fair tiebreaker. When you start getting into tiebreakers with two losses beyond the heads up matchup then no one really has that strong of an argument anyways, so it is what it is. If you've got three conference losses (one crossover) and you're trying to argue that you deserve to be in the championship game over a team with two division losses that you beat then you're just stretching it...with three conference losses you are clearly not the best team in the conference, so at that point you just need to take a drink and enjoy your bowl game.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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,

You were doing well until this. Don't weaken your argument. I know plenty of people who regret to this day our dropping Auburn, one of Tech's most important historic rivalries. And as seldom as we have played them in the last several decades they are still one of four teams that we have played the most in our history. And again, whenever the topic of Tech scheduling comes up there is a strong lobby to bring back Auburn.

As for records in rivalries, I have read that Dodd's rivalry with "The Bashful Baron of Barlow Bend" was just as important to fans in the Southeast as Dodd's rivalry with Bear Bryant, even though both were fairly one sided.

 

[Animal02]

OK...so in your scenario, say we lose. Now we have 2 losses in conference...even at a three way tie we don't have that strong of an argument for being the conference champion.

If you can't beat Clemson from the other side, why do you deserve to be conference champions? There are two scenarios: 1) Clemson is the best team from the other side and you lost...you don't get the chance to play them again in the ACCCG...there's a pretty strong case that you don't deserve to because you already lost and the other teams in your division have a stronger conference record. 2) Clemson is not the best team on the other side...and you lost. In this case, the handicap argument doesn't even add up, because they aren't the best team over there.

It's pretty simple in my eyes, btw. If you lose one conference game, you are going to be in the ACCCG most years, period. If you lose two conference games, the conference record is easily a fair tiebreaker. When you start getting into tiebreakers with two losses beyond the heads up matchup then no one really has that strong of an argument anyways, so it is what it is. If you've got three conference losses (one crossover) and you're trying to argue that you deserve to be in the championship game over a team with two division losses that you beat then you're just stretching it...with three conference losses you are clearly not the best team in the conference, so at that point you just need to take a drink and enjoy your bowl game.

You so completely miss the point it is not even worth continuing.

 

[Animal02]

You were doing well until this. Don't weaken your argument. I know plenty of people who regret to this day our dropping Auburn, one of Tech's most important historic rivalries. And as seldom as we have played them in the last several decades they are still one of four teams that we have played the most in our history. And again, whenever the topic of Tech scheduling comes up there is a strong lobby to bring back Auburn.

As for records in rivalries, I have read that Dodd's rivalry with "The Bashful Baron of Barlow Bend" was just as important to fans in the Southeast as Dodd's rivalry with Bear Bryant, even though both were fairly one sided.

Sure there are lots.....in this closed little bubble.

You are just proving my point......while there are old timers that remember playing Auburn all the time......there is a younger generation that doesn't, and looks at VT and Clemson as some of us viewed Auburn, Bama, and Tennessee.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

the only reason that it is now considered a "big rivalry" is the ACC contrived "permanent cross over rivalry"

I see now why your argument falls apart for me at a certain point. Many a Tech fan did not see this as contrived but lobbied the ACC strongly to make sure Clemson did not get dropped from Tech's schedule. But, to reiterate the very careful arguing that is going on here, the fact that some fans already saw this as a rivalry is just a feeling and no more valid than your feeling that it was not a rivalry. It certainly felt contrived to you to make Clemson the permanent crossover but to others it felt like getting what we wished for.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You are just proving my point......while there are old timers that remember playing Auburn all the time......there is a younger generation that doesn't, and looks at VT and Clemson as some of us viewed Auburn, Bama, and Tennessee.

Sure, I get that. But you could argue the same thing about playing Georgia for that matter. Supposedly there was a time in the not too distant past when Tech considered dropping Georgia. The argument then was that the series had become lopsided, that it hurt Tech's bowl chances and so forth, and that if Tech dropped Georgia it would only take a decade or two before fans no longer missed the rivalry.

 

[bke1984]

Unprofitable? Talk about short sighted.......compared to the benefits of playing in the ACC CG which also equates to a better bowl game and possibly the CFP......insisting on the Clemson game is short sighted.

I'm 90% sure the ACC splits the bowl money evenly, which means that Tech playing in a better bowl doesn't earn us any more money. It garners more recognition, sure, but I don't believe it does anything from a financial standpoint more than someone else going to the Orange Bowl. In fact, depending on where the the bowl game is, it can actually cost us money in travel to play in a better bowl, because we definitely do not split the travel costs with the rest of the conference.

 

[Animal02]

I see now why your argument falls apart for me at a certain point. Many a Tech fan did not see this as contrived but lobbied the ACC strongly to make sure Clemson did not get dropped from Tech's schedule. But, to reiterate the very careful arguing that is going on here, the fact that some fans already saw this as a rivalry is just a feeling and no more valid than your feeling that it was not a rivalry. It certainly felt contrived to you to make Clemson the permanent crossover but to others it felt like getting what we wished for.

And that is fine......as I said previously, Clemson was never a rival when I was at Tech ......UNC, ND, as well as a few SEC teams was a different story.

 

[bke1984]

Sure, I get that. But you could argue the same thing about playing Georgia for that matter. Supposedly there was a time in the not too distant past when Tech considered dropping Georgia. The argument then was that the series had become lopsided, that it hurt Tech's bowl chances and so forth, and that if Tech dropped Georgia it would only take a decade or two before fans no longer missed the rivalry.

I for one am 31 years old. We have played Auburn twice in my life when I was old enough to care, but I do consider it one of the important series Tech plays. While it doesn't make sense to add another permanent non-conference game to the schedule every year, I'd love to see us renew the rivalry at least once every 5 years or so...if nothing else, play once a decade like we have with Notre Dame for the last 90 years or so

 

[Animal02]

I'm 90% sure the ACC splits the bowl money evenly, which means that Tech playing in a better bowl doesn't earn us any more money. It garners more recognition, sure, but I don't believe it does anything from a financial standpoint more than someone else going to the Orange Bowl. In fact, depending on where the the bowl game is, it can actually cost us money in travel to play in a better bowl, because we definitely do not split the travel costs with the rest of the conference.

There are far greater financial impacts than just the bowl payout. Most people realize figure that out.

 

[bke1984]

I for one am 31 years old. We have played Auburn twice in my life when I was old enough to care, but I do consider it one of the important series Tech plays. While it doesn't make sense to add another permanent non-conference game to the schedule every year, I'd love to see us renew the rivalry at least once every 5 years or so...if nothing else, play once a decade like we have with Notre Dame for the last 90 years or so

We actually played ND more often than that most decades, but there was a big game from the early 80's to the late 90's