Palmetto Proving Grounds

Not that these ACC wussies would go for it, but I believe we should rotate NC State and UNC on our schedule every year. Traditional rivals in an area we recruit heavily. We could make it a special event to kickoff each season, get ESPN to promote it as the annual college season opener. Call it "Battle of the Carolinas" or something similar. Tanner could probably pull in State due to his ties there but as always UNC would balk until they could be assured they would have the upper hand.

We HAVE to play an instate FBS team EVERY year. So does Clemson.

I still don't get how people who have been members of this board for over two years, or fans for life do not know this.

My understanding is that the future playoff system takes several factors into consideration when choosing teams to participate; one factor is strength of schedule. I've been around long enough to see some of those So. Cal, ND, Michigan, LSU games of the 70's, even though I was a kid at the time, it was great. I am all for upgrading our competition level; to another post, I would gladly pay an extra $10/$15/$20 per ticket to see a quality opponent.

If the SEC does expand and goes to a nine game conference schedule that would leave just one open spot to increase the competition level/strength of schedule. Let's face it winning our conference is a tall order for us, we will need all the help we can get in order to improve our chances of getting into the playoff pool. The question is do we go w/ teams located in areas we already recruit - ACC schools geographically from Miami to Maryland - to possibly improve our recruiting success or do we go to other areas of the country - Texas, California, Big 10 country - to impress the committee?, I am interested to see how it all plays out. Being redundant, I am for upping the ante on schedule, like the old saying goes, "To be the Man, you gotta beat the Man."

The last couple of years there has been quite a bit of chatter about some of our opponents and their lack of competition; there are already comments and posts about our own schedule for 2013 setting us up nicely to be in contention for the SECCG - remember next year there are two by weeks also, is it "fair" to chirp about our opponents' soft schedule and at the same time laud our own schedule as being less difficult?, for me the answer is no because the last thing I want is another team's fanbase saying we got there because we had an easy schedule. With the new playoff system just two years away I feel Coach Tanner is doing the right thing by getting a start sooner than later on improving the competition level of our schedule.

Better than playing Wofford, or Navy.

i am hoping to see the SEC cross schedule games with the Big 12 in the future. this would strengthen the perception of the Big 12 as the fourth conference in a Big 4 and weaken the ACC. We shouldnt give the ACC anything. if we add ooc games we need to go Big 12.

We didn't have to. With 30 conference games, all of which are difficult, 3 games with Clemson, 2 against COC, 3 with East Carolina, and the SEC Tourney, that's 40+ games out of 56 against the best competition in college baseball. The football schedule will rarely, if ever, stack up with that!

I love Ray. But 40/56 is .71 and 9/12 is .75. So if every conference game is tough, and we add in Clemson and well North Carolina is just as tough in football as CofC in baseball, the football schedule is by far tougher percentage wise.

Edit: It's not that I even disagree with you. The baseball schedule we played was fine. I don't think anyone says anything to the contrary.