That's a good point. The question is, does it hurt them more to be in the playoffs every year, or to lose a bunch of games in a real.conference.
A question for those who don't want Clemson in the SEC
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
That's a good point. The question is, does it hurt them more to be in the playoffs every year, or to lose a bunch of games in a real.conference.
That's why I added the part about the gap increasing each time I hear this tune. We're pretty much just repeating ourselves at this point.
I get that you think it's a big deal and I agree it's really only a matter of how big a deal it is, rather than if it's an impact at all. I'm just pointing out that I've heard this exact conversation for literally decades.
Last edited:
But you haven't heard this exact conversation for decades. It has never been as dramatic as $50MM, which is why - for the first time - CU and FSU are making noise about it.
That's why I added the part about the gap increasing each time I hear this tune. We're pretty much just repeating ourselves at this point.
Fair point, but I imagine we could play this game all day. Does it help them more monetarily to receive SEC $?
And we can speculate all day as to whether it helps, hinders or changes little. But, if it’s something “they” want, which seems to be the case from talking with some of their fans, I’m against it. Adamantly. Lol
Taters should never be allowed in the SEC no matter what the cost. If we never play them again I’ll be just fine! Screw em!
It certainly does when you are bringing in $50MM/year and your in-state rival is bringing in $105MM/year. This isn't just a one time deal. It is an annual occurrence.
Let's assume two houses in the same neighborhood - one is valued at $500k and the other is valued north of $1MM. It would be silly to argue that the $500k house is the better one.
Me waiting on a rationale objection to Clemson joining the SEC:
The game wasn't played due to Covid, as was other games.We had this conversation a couple years ago when the game was not played.
Bill forcing Clemson-South Carolina football game fails
A panel of lawmakers has rejected a bill that would create a state law requiring South Carolina and Clemson play football every year.www.wbtv.com
You keep repeating yourself with a statement that isn't accurate. The tune is not the same due to the dollars involved. CU has been able to compete very well in the college football landscape when they are within range of everyone else in terms of revenue. Once the SEC TV deal is redone after the addition of TX and OK, they are no longer in range. When you also consider the impact of the transfer portal and NIL, the tune really changes. It simply isn't the same song, despite your insistence that it is.
Wrong. We're not dealing with emotions here...we're dealing with measurable dollars, and lots of them. You know this, right?
If SEC money is the be-all, end-all, why are we overall still a middle-of-the-road program after having SEC money in our pocket for 30 years?
The emotional response may be based on money, but it's emotional nonetheless.
Pre SEC - zero national championships
Post SEC - multiple national championships
Now, you were saying something about emotions?
You didn't read the link, did you? It discusses how the attempt to mandate the matchup failed.
That's why I added the part about the gap increasing each time I hear this tune. We're pretty much just repeating ourselves at this point.
Where that is true to most of us, he has a point that the SEC money may lead to better non football, non revenue generating sports.
Personally, I could care less if Clemson got money to suddenly be competitive in those sports. Especially if it knocks their football program down a few pegs.
Last edited:
Football certainly carries the water. And our football profile has certainly improved significantly since we joined the conference. Neither Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier are coaching at USC if we are not in the SEC. Bowl season is no longer an embarrassment for us like it was pre-SEC. Take a walk around Williams-Brice today and tell me that it is not vastly improved over 1990. There is no comparison.
Emotional argument?? LOL.
This isn't just about the non-revenue sports.
If CU remains in the ACC, they will no longer be competitive in football. They simply cannot afford it. To continue our analogy about tunes, they will be singing the blues. It's already started.
Well, exactly. Nobody cares if Clemson wins baseball titles or WBB titles. Any sane fan would trade Clemson suddenly becoming a WBB juggernaut for them being a perennial 4-loss football team.
That's all well and good, but the only result that matters is on the football field. We are about where we were prior to joining the SEC...a touch above .500. Yes, our profile is higher and the facilities are nicer, but wins and losses are the only metric that really matters. It's just silliness to think that getting a boost in revenue is going to turn Clemson into an insurmountable football juggernaut. They would easily absorb 3-4 SEC losses most seasons.
I care more by giving them SEC prestige and also money than I do about their record. Logical.
Pre-SEC - zero seasons with 11+ wins
Post-SEC - multiple seasons with 11+ wins
They already are a football juggernaut. That changes if they remain in the ACC, as the conference increasingly weakens without adequate funding.
That's your opinion, which we can probably characterize as an emotional response.
I wouldn't want to see what they could do with $100M+ in annual revenue...especially when the vast majority of it would be spent on football.
One could logically say that relegating them to a middle of the pack sec team would be worth the trade off of "prestige" and money.
Let them start fielding a women's rugby team, as long as the football team is knocked back.
Or a worse case, they go to the B10 when the inevitable happens, and have the money to go with an easier schedule (than the sec).
That'd be a logical argument if it was certain that they'd be a middle of the pack SEC team. But you can't say that with certainty.
No such law, never has been. A bad rumor. A bill was voted on in 2012 to require them to play, but it was voted down.
Unless the B1G drastically changes it requirements, Clemson does not qualify.....and for the B1G quite a few other schools do meet their requirenents,
Whether it's likely is a matter of opinion. And since keeping them out of that cushy landing spot is one more reason to force them to play an SEC schedule, it fits nicely in the thread, imo.
I can say it with extreme confidence. Not much said in this thread by either side can be said with certainty, if that's your benchmark for a "logical" stance.
Agreed. But I could see "accomodations" when the B10 and SEC end up swallowing most of college football. Otherwise, the B10 might be limiting itself too much.
You can't be serious. Their last 5 complete recruiting classes were ranked 9th, 3rd, 4th, 13th and 10th. They will continue dominating in the ACC and get a clear path to the playoffs and potential national championships. Please tell me what you're drinking because I'm still trying to recover from yesterday's outpatient surgery and prepare for next week's follow-up.
I'm totally serious. The ACC is swirling the drain as an also-ran conference as the revenue discrepancy surfaces.
Riddle me this - if CU has a clear path to the playoffs by remaining in the ACC, why in the world would they be trying to leave? If you can answer that, I'll buy you a drink as you recover from your surgery.
I have yet to see any sort of credible discussion that has CU going to the BIG10. Please provide a link.
CU has already shown what it can and will do when it commits large amounts of money to football. And they've also recently taken the very best of the SEC (Bama) to the woodshed in a national championship game. You may want to dial back that confidence.
Texas and Oklahoma are coming to the SEC.
The SEC TV deal is about to be renegotiated.
The next TV deal will be massive - more than double the ACC contract within a few years.
All of those things can be said with certainty, which is my benchmark that supports a factual stance.
I don't suppose you have much of anything to support what you are "seeing". If so, I'd enjoy taking a look.
There won't be a credible link of them going to any new conference until the formal announcement, or maybe a couple days before. But you knew that.