(06-09-2014 08:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.

This is what has ALWAYS been my main problem with the ACC. The majority of the founding members seem to view a conference's primary role as supporting the academics of a conference instead of a primary focus of supporting athletics. I would like to say that the BCS era has opened the eyes of the conference, but the expansion fiasco would suggest otherwise.

(06-11-2014 06:14 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.

This is what has ALWAYS been my main problem with the ACC. The majority of the founding members seem to view a conference's primary role as supporting the academics of a conference instead of a primary focus of supporting athletics. I would like to say that the BCS era has opened the eyes of the conference, but the expansion fiasco would suggest otherwise.

Please explain.

(06-10-2014 11:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:24 PM)krux Wrote:  I wasn't defending anyone. I was simply stating my observation. I have no agenda.

Ok. Your "observation" is supportive of a fan(base) that isn't supportive of your inclusion.

================

Poor jam, crying his/her eyes out. Someone take that dog out back and shoot it.

And that's fine. I never claimed it did not. I don't have to be a lemming to my own fan base to feel secure about my opinion. Sometimes, the team you're rooting for makes bonehead plays and you call them dumb...I did nothing more than that.

(06-11-2014 06:14 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.

This is what has ALWAYS been my main problem with the ACC. The majority of the founding members seem to view a conference's primary role as supporting the academics of a conference instead of a primary focus of supporting athletics. I would like to say that the BCS era has opened the eyes of the conference, but the expansion fiasco would suggest otherwise.

Funny thing is....those same 'academics' don't push for the ACC to have an ACTUAL academic relationship ala the Big 10 research consortium.

It was a big reason I wanted FSU out of the ACC. The ACC kept holding back athletics in the name of academics, but there was no academic benefit of substance.

Sure, FSU has some academics who get their rocks off sitting next to the Duke president during a volleyball game...but that doesn't advance FSU academics (or Duke academics).


IF the ACC is going to claim academics matters in the conference....then make it matter. Instead, it is just a mirage.....an empty BS PR ploy, but nothing of true substance.


I have long suspected that Tobacco Road doesn't want to associated academically with but a few in the ACC and don't care for athletics outside of BBall, so we have wound up with a conference with no true academic benefit and cut off at the knees in the big money sport (football).

It is a bad strategy and one reason it was so easy for Maryland to leave. IF there was an athletic conference worth a damn, they wouldn't of left......if there was a REAL academic relationship, leaving would of been MUCH tougher. But there isn't, so it was easy.


Instead of fixing athletics in the conference (ie revenue and mainly football) or adding an actual academic benefit to the conference....the conference decided, 'lets up the payout to $50 Million and a GOR and hold folks hostage.' Lucky for them our idiotic president (who left FSU RIGHT for a B1G school right after) signed the thing.


The ACC always chooses force (GOR) and empty PR instead of actually fixing what is wrong with it.


side note: I am aware of the lame ACC website that speaks of an academic relationship in the conference. It is just PR. Unlike the Big 10 research consortium, the ACC website is nothing but a website.

(06-11-2014 08:30 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 06:14 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.

This is what has ALWAYS been my main problem with the ACC. The majority of the founding members seem to view a conference's primary role as supporting the academics of a conference instead of a primary focus of supporting athletics. I would like to say that the BCS era has opened the eyes of the conference, but the expansion fiasco would suggest otherwise.

Funny thing is....those same 'academics' don't push for the ACC to have an ACTUAL academic relationship ala the Big 10 research consortium.

It was a big reason I wanted FSU out of the ACC. The ACC kept holding back athletics in the name of academics, but there was no academic benefit of substance.

Sure, FSU has some academics who get their rocks off sitting next to the Duke president during a volleyball game...but that doesn't advance FSU academics (or Duke academics).


IF the ACC is going to claim academics matters in the conference....then make it matter. Instead, it is just a mirage.....an empty BS PR ploy, but nothing of true substance.


I have long suspected that Tobacco Road doesn't want to associated academically with but a few in the ACC and don't care for athletics outside of BBall, so we have wound up with a conference with no true academic benefit and cut off at the knees in the big money sport (football).

It is a bad strategy and one reason it was so easy for Maryland to leave. IF there was an athletic conference worth a damn, they wouldn't of left......if there was a REAL academic relationship, leaving would of been MUCH tougher. But there isn't, so it was easy.


Instead of fixing athletics in the conference (ie revenue and mainly football) or adding an actual academic benefit to the conference....the conference decided, 'lets up the payout to $50 Million and a GOR and hold folks hostage.' Lucky for them our idiotic president (who left FSU RIGHT for a B1G school right after) signed the thing.


The ACC always chooses force (GOR) and empty PR instead of actually fixing what is wrong with it.


side note: I am aware of the lame ACC website that speaks of an academic relationship in the conference. It is just PR. Unlike the Big 10 research consortium, the ACC website is nothing but a website.

I have two areas of consideration in your comments. I'll start off by saying that I agree with you regarding the academic benefits. But I think Maryland was bent on leaving the Acc no matter what, because of the BIG revenue potential and Marylands dire athletic financial condition and some of Marylands leadership having deep BIG ties.

Also, if you think it was a bad idea for FSU to sign the GOR, what were its alternatives to not signing? The SEC wasnt calling. The BIG had other targets. What would have been FSU's end game if it didnt sign the GOR, other than putting the ACC in a situation that made it more and more unstable, which would have caused everyone to be suspicious of each other. My personal belief, and this may hurt the egos of some FSU posters here, is that FSU had NO other choice but to sign. If thats the case, then why criticize the folks who signed it?

cuse,
No, FSU had no other option.

But why does that mean FSU has to sign it? Was the ACC going to kick us out?

Don't sign it.


But NONE of that addresses my entire post. It isn't about whether FSU should of signed a GOR or not.


The point was......the ACC is dysfunctional and illogical in how it operates. Instead of fixing those things, it chooses weak PR and force to keep the conference together.


It won't work, it will only slow the death of the conference. That is the point.

(06-10-2014 11:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Poor jam, crying his/her eyes out. Someone take that dog out back and shoot it.

This is getting good.

(06-11-2014 08:30 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 06:14 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.

This is what has ALWAYS been my main problem with the ACC. The majority of the founding members seem to view a conference's primary role as supporting the academics of a conference instead of a primary focus of supporting athletics. I would like to say that the BCS era has opened the eyes of the conference, but the expansion fiasco would suggest otherwise.

Funny thing is....those same 'academics' don't push for the ACC to have an ACTUAL academic relationship ala the Big 10 research consortium.

It was a big reason I wanted FSU out of the ACC. The ACC kept holding back athletics in the name of academics, but there was no academic benefit of substance.

Sure, FSU has some academics who get their rocks off sitting next to the Duke president during a volleyball game...but that doesn't advance FSU academics (or Duke academics).


IF the ACC is going to claim academics matters in the conference....then make it matter. Instead, it is just a mirage.....an empty BS PR ploy, but nothing of true substance.


I have long suspected that Tobacco Road doesn't want to associated academically with but a few in the ACC and don't care for athletics outside of BBall, so we have wound up with a conference with no true academic benefit and cut off at the knees in the big money sport (football).

It is a bad strategy and one reason it was so easy for Maryland to leave. IF there was an athletic conference worth a damn, they wouldn't of left......if there was a REAL academic relationship, leaving would of been MUCH tougher. But there isn't, so it was easy.


Instead of fixing athletics in the conference (ie revenue and mainly football) or adding an actual academic benefit to the conference....the conference decided, 'lets up the payout to $50 Million and a GOR and hold folks hostage.' Lucky for them our idiotic president (who left FSU RIGHT for a B1G school right after) signed the thing.


The ACC always chooses force (GOR) and empty PR instead of actually fixing what is wrong with it.


side note: I am aware of the lame ACC website that speaks of an academic relationship in the conference. It is just PR. Unlike the Big 10 research consortium, the ACC website is nothing but a website.

In regards to knowledgable posts, I'm pretty sure you are zero for 48 .

(06-11-2014 07:30 AM)krux Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 11:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:24 PM)krux Wrote:  I wasn't defending anyone. I was simply stating my observation. I have no agenda.

Ok. Your "observation" is supportive of a fan(base) that isn't supportive of your inclusion.

================

Poor jam, crying his/her eyes out. Someone take that dog out back and shoot it.

And that's fine. I never claimed it did not. I don't have to be a lemming to my own fan base to feel secure about my opinion. Sometimes, the team you're rooting for makes bonehead plays and you call them dumb...I did nothing more than that.

Seems we've come to an understanding. I would want nothing to do with UNC if I were a UL fan. F them if they don't respect you. Again, that's jmo. I don't think Wilkie is being dumb here, though. Even though I've disagreed with many of their comments in the past. But oh well.

How about F Marge.....Stop trying to stir some stuff up between UNC and Louisville. My comments were directly mostly at Wilkie. Not all Card fans are spewing his rhetoric.

The Survival of the ACC is ultimately at stake at the end of the day' The way I see the ACC is thru the eyes of a Louisville fan that grew up in Tidewater Virginia (I lived in Norfolk and Newport News:

1) 1960s - 1970s the ACC was:

Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake
Clemson
South Carolina left in 1971
George Tech added 1978

At this point the ACC was a minor football conference with great basketball! So the ACC took these steps to remain a power conference in both football and basketball.

FSU was added July 1, 1991.

The ACC added three members from the Big East Conference during the 2005 cycle of conference realignment: Miami and Virginia Tech joined on July 1, 2004, and Boston College joined on July 1, 2005, as the league's twelfth member and the first from New England or anywhere in the Northeastern US.

Notre Dame, Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added in 2013.

In 2014 Maryland leaves for the Big 10 and University of Louisville replaces them.

It is clear that the Tobacco Row schools could not have survived as a P5 conference in football without the insertions of new football and basketball into the ACC, so Marge you so point on that the four(4) Tobacco Row schools need to get over themselves and the ACC would not have been P5 without the new blood.

(06-11-2014 06:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  How about F Marge.....Stop trying to stir some stuff up between UNC and Louisville. My comments were directly mostly at Wilkie. Not all Card fans are spewing his rhetoric.

Well I'd honestly rather you not F me. I just ain't into you like that, sweetie.

Your comments directed at Wilkie were criticizing UL, not Wilkie. But hey...

(06-11-2014 07:54 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 06:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  How about F Marge.....Stop trying to stir some stuff up between UNC and Louisville. My comments were directly mostly at Wilkie. Not all Card fans are spewing his rhetoric.

Well I'd honestly rather you not F me. I just ain't into you like that, sweetie...

(06-11-2014 07:12 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  The Survival of the ACC is ultimately at stake at the end of the day' The way I see the ACC is thru the eyes of a Louisville fan that grew up in Tidewater Virginia (I lived in Norfolk and Newport News:

1) 1960s - 1970s the ACC was:

Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake
Clemson
South Carolina left in 1971
George Tech added 1978

At this point the ACC was a minor football conference with great basketball! So the ACC took these steps to remain a power conference in both football and basketball.

FSU was added July 1, 1991.

The ACC added three members from the Big East Conference during the 2005 cycle of conference realignment: Miami and Virginia Tech joined on July 1, 2004, and Boston College joined on July 1, 2005, as the league's twelfth member and the first from New England or anywhere in the Northeastern US.

Notre Dame, Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added in 2013.

In 2014 Maryland leaves for the Big 10 and University of Louisville replaces them.

It is clear that the Tobacco Row schools could not have survived as a P5 conference in football without the insertions of new football and basketball into the ACC, so Marge you so point on that the four(4) Tobacco Row schools need to get over themselves and the ACC would not have been P5 without the new blood.