I can tell Duke has no desire to expand their national reach and improve in football beyond what they peaked out at already. They are comfortable with their round robin games between the NC schools who could have possibly had an interesting rivalry with Stanford and/or Syracuse. It’s not surprising though, they know who they are and are unashamed.
(10-31-2023 08:18 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: I can tell Duke has no desire to expand their national reach and improve in football beyond what they peaked out at already. They are comfortable with their round robin games between the NC schools who could have possibly had an interesting rivalry with Stanford and/or Syracuse. It’s not surprising though, they know who they are and are unashamed.
This is a really stupid post. Playing century-long rivals that your fans care about has nothing to do with "no desire to improve in football".
Texas also played 3 in-state teams every year while in the Big XII. They won a national championship and finished runner-up for another.
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2023 08:24 AM by IWokeUpLikeThis.)
My guess is they approached this just like it seems the Big Ten did. They protected anyone where both schools agreed only. The only thing in there I could see not being that way is SMU with the California schools. That one might have been forced as a condition on coming in (to limit travel from the east). Or it might have just seemed natural for the Bay schools to have one fewer game in the eastern time zone.
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
The ACC has 16, apparently. The Big Ten has 11 LOL
(10-31-2023 07:48 AM)LeeNobody Wrote: It is a travesty that Georgia Tech was given no annual rivalries. There must have been some horse trading as Tech is the latest team to go to California and for the next three years they play VT and Duke Annually. Clemson, Duke and VT are played 4 times in 7 years while Lville and Wake are played 5. I can't believe Tech is so broke we literally traded away annual rivalries for less travel. Though trips to Syracuse, BC and Pitt aren't busy trips either...
I don't think Tech wants annual opponents. They ditched Duke and I don't think they have the appetite for playing Clemson yearly. Going back to the Notre Dame of the South approach, perhaps?
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2023 09:34 AM by esayem.)
(10-31-2023 08:18 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: I can tell Duke has no desire to expand their national reach and improve in football beyond what they peaked out at already. They are comfortable with their round robin games between the NC schools who could have possibly had an interesting rivalry with Stanford and/or Syracuse. It’s not surprising though, they know who they are and are unashamed.
This is a really stupid post. Playing century-long rivals that your fans care about has nothing to do with "no desire to improve in football".
Texas also played 3 in-state teams every year while in the Big XII. They won a national championship and finished runner-up for another.
They did not need to have an annual game with NCSU, they did not regularly play them when divisions split the ACC. NCSU could have played Clemson (a traditional rival), but instead got Duke. Who pushed this arrangement is anybody’s guess. But if Duke wanted to, they could have had more frequent games with national appeal. I stand by what I said.
(10-31-2023 08:18 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: I can tell Duke has no desire to expand their national reach and improve in football beyond what they peaked out at already. They are comfortable with their round robin games between the NC schools who could have possibly had an interesting rivalry with Stanford and/or Syracuse. It’s not surprising though, they know who they are and are unashamed.
This is a really stupid post. Playing century-long rivals that your fans care about has nothing to do with "no desire to improve in football".
Texas also played 3 in-state teams every year while in the Big XII. They won a national championship and finished runner-up for another.
They did not need to have an annual game with NCSU, they did not regularly play them when divisions split the ACC. NCSU could have played Clemson (a traditional rival), but instead got Duke. Who pushed this arrangement is anybody’s guess. But if Duke wanted to, they could have had more frequent games with national appeal. I stand by what I said.
I was surprised to see this one as well given that NC State would each have had two permanent rivals with UNC and Wake. It was strange that this rivalry was resurrected as part of the scheduling for the 14 school single division format over the historic GT-Duke and NC St-Wake rivalries. The only thing I can come up with is that both Duke and NC State want the attendance boost from playing a game against an opponent in the same market. Seems like a weak reason, though, for a conference to skew the schedule so much.
The new ACC scheduling model isn't about balancing strength of schedule (although it does a decent job, for the most part), nor is it about punishing anyone... it's about filling the stadiums with regional rivals as much as possible. And, yes, it seems the annual "rivalry" games were only kept if BOTH teams agreed to it.
(10-31-2023 08:18 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: I can tell Duke has no desire to expand their national reach and improve in football beyond what they peaked out at already. They are comfortable with their round robin games between the NC schools who could have possibly had an interesting rivalry with Stanford and/or Syracuse. It’s not surprising though, they know who they are and are unashamed.
This is a really stupid post. Playing century-long rivals that your fans care about has nothing to do with "no desire to improve in football".
Texas also played 3 in-state teams every year while in the Big XII. They won a national championship and finished runner-up for another.
They did not need to have an annual game with NCSU, they did not regularly play them when divisions split the ACC. NCSU could have played Clemson (a traditional rival), but instead got Duke. Who pushed this arrangement is anybody’s guess. But if Duke wanted to, they could have had more frequent games with national appeal. I stand by what I said.
Duke and NCSU are only about 25 miles apart. They should play every year. That they did not play every year during the divisional period was the result of a stupid divisional alignment, nothing more (the fact that a college football geek like myself still had to think, more than 15 years out, about who was in what division should have been your first hint at how bad your divisional alignment was.)
(10-30-2023 08:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: They did close to a perfect job, only missing Clemson-GT. Those 2 are too close and have played for too long.
I have the feeling Georgia Tech has been pushing for a more varied schedule. Duke is their most played ACC opponent and that game was dropped and not picked back up.
ESPN must have pushed for the rekindling of the VaTech-Miami "rivalry".
Wake gets NC State back, but loses VaTech. State loses Clemson.
VaTech Miami is interesting... why not Miami UL like they pushed with the 3-3-5 model? I think this tells you who those 19-20th schools could end up being in the SEC, should the SEC miss out on one of UNC/FSU/Clemson.
Admittedly, Louisville stated they have no rivalries, proving that the Big 12 would have been the better fit. Unfortunately, the ACC didn't go to the 9 game model (I know someone would need to play 8 but not a big deal).
Louisville would only have one natural rival in the B12, and only starting this season: Cincinnati
I guess you could make the argument that if Lou, Cincy and WV had all joined the Big 12 in 2012-2013, then they would all be considered rivals today. Lou, Cincy and WV.
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2023 10:39 AM by goofus.)
(10-30-2023 09:08 PM)esayem Wrote: I have the feeling Georgia Tech has been pushing for a more varied schedule. Duke is their most played ACC opponent and that game was dropped and not picked back up.
ESPN must have pushed for the rekindling of the VaTech-Miami "rivalry".
Wake gets NC State back, but loses VaTech. State loses Clemson.
VaTech Miami is interesting... why not Miami UL like they pushed with the 3-3-5 model? I think this tells you who those 19-20th schools could end up being in the SEC, should the SEC miss out on one of UNC/FSU/Clemson.
Admittedly, Louisville stated they have no rivalries, proving that the Big 12 would have been the better fit. Unfortunately, the ACC didn't go to the 9 game model (I know someone would need to play 8 but not a big deal).
Louisville would only have one natural rival in the B12, and only starting this season: Cincinnati
I guess you could make the argument that if Lou, Cincy and WV had all joined the Big 12 in 2012-2013, then they would all be considered rivals today. Lou, Cincy and WV.
Louisville has few natural rivals that play major football. Mainly because Louisville has moved conferences more than almost any other school. Louisville is a school that also is geographically located in an Ohio River crease, separating the Big Ten from the South. And from the East.
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
I’d argue Clemson vs. FSU is of national interest. They’ve not only been the only national title candidates from the ACC going back to ~2010, they also have the two biggest stadiums and attendance. They even have the heritage of Bobby Bowden vs. son Tommy Bowden. The games gets on ABC prime time quite regularly.
No question, Clemson vs FSU is often an important national game.
But IMO it's not a "rivalry". It's just a game between two programs that are often good, so the games draw interest.
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
I’d argue Clemson vs. FSU is of national interest. They’ve not only been the only national title candidates from the ACC going back to ~2010, they also have the two biggest stadiums and attendance. They even have the heritage of Bobby Bowden vs. son Tommy Bowden. The games gets on ABC prime time quite regularly.
No question, Clemson vs FSU is often an important national game.
But IMO it's not a "rivalry". It's just a game between two programs that are often good, so the games draw interest.
I would respectfully disagree, and suggest that it's been a rivalry since, at least, the fabled "Puntrooskie" game in '88, which predates the Noles joining the ACC:
(10-30-2023 08:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: They did close to a perfect job, only missing Clemson-GT. Those 2 are too close and have played for too long.
I have the feeling Georgia Tech has been pushing for a more varied schedule. Duke is their most played ACC opponent and that game was dropped and not picked back up.
ESPN must have pushed for the rekindling of the VaTech-Miami "rivalry".
Wake gets NC State back, but loses VaTech. State loses Clemson.
VT-Miami has potential to be a good ratings draw, it makes sense to make that annual.
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
I’d argue Clemson vs. FSU is of national interest. They’ve not only been the only national title candidates from the ACC going back to ~2010, they also have the two biggest stadiums and attendance. They even have the heritage of Bobby Bowden vs. son Tommy Bowden. The games gets on ABC prime time quite regularly.
No question, Clemson vs FSU is often an important national game.
But IMO it's not a "rivalry". It's just a game between two programs that are often good, so the games draw interest.
I would respectfully disagree, and suggest that it's been a rivalry since, at least, the fabled "Puntrooskie" game in '88, which predates the Noles joining the ACC:
I can't speak for Clemson fans, but most Noles would agree with Quo's take over yours. It doesn't even come close to the level of FSU's true rivals. I mean, Florida and LSU have played some great games against each other, but they're not really rivals.
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
The ACC has 16, apparently. The Big Ten has 11 LOL
(10-31-2023 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The ACC just doesn't have many totally in-house rivalries that are national in nature. I mean sure, NC vs NC State and NC vs Duke are rivalries, but they are of interest to people in North Carolina only, basically.
The only national ACC rivalry is FSU vs Miami, IMO.
As a polyglot conference, the ACC doesn't even have many regional rivalries worth protecting. Whereas say the SEC and B1G are filled with those.
I’d argue Clemson vs. FSU is of national interest. They’ve not only been the only national title candidates from the ACC going back to ~2010, they also have the two biggest stadiums and attendance. They even have the heritage of Bobby Bowden vs. son Tommy Bowden. The games gets on ABC prime time quite regularly.
No question, Clemson vs FSU is often an important national game.
But IMO it's not a "rivalry". It's just a game between two programs that are often good, so the games draw interest.
I would respectfully disagree, and suggest that it's been a rivalry since, at least, the fabled "Puntrooskie" game in '88, which predates the Noles joining the ACC:
I can't speak for Clemson fans, but most Noles would agree with Quo's take over yours. It doesn't even come close to the level of FSU's true rivals. I mean, Florida and LSU have played some great games against each other, but they're not really rivals.
I don’t know how many rivals we are allowed to have, but this is close to the importance of the UM game and could arguably have been even more important as it used to decide the Atlantic division winner most years. The rivalry had a good foundation to build on with the “puntrooski”, then manufactured by “the Bowden Bowl”, then took a life on its own when the game began to have high stakes.
A lot of Nole fans would have been upset if this game was taken away, but I would ok with it if there was a plan to leverage the FSU and Clemson brand to prop up GT, VT, UL, NCSU, I’m a team ACC guy.
