http://www.kentucky.com/2014/06/19/33001...ks-to.html

Quote:In the 1990s, during C.M. Newton's tenure as Kentucky athletics director and Charles Wethington's time as UK president, Kentucky had exploratory talks about leaving the SEC for the ACC.

"We talked to them very seriously, but very quietly," Newton said last week. "Dr. Wethington had me go over and talk to them for a short period one evening."

Among the officials he met with, Newton said, were then-ACC Commissioner Gene Corrigan and then-Duke Athletics Director Tom Butters.

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."

Quote:In the 1990s, Newton said the powers that be at Kentucky, a founding member of the SEC, decided it was best not to unmoor UK from its traditional league home.

It makes sense. There are lots of the big southern publics in both the ACC and SEC that you can make an argument belong in the other conference.

I think it's fair to say that it worked out best for all concerned that things played out as they did.

How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Wow. I had no idea UK to the ACC came close to ever happening.

It had been suggested a few times over the years that UK could fit into the ACC but not persistently like was the case of Rutgers to the B1G.

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Who knows. What if UK actually built a football program in the ACC while their basketball program suffered?

Would their fan base have gone for that at the time?

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Not as big as Florida State-Miami.

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Unimaginably huge.

UK would have carried the ACC during those thin years in the 2000s.

Ultimately it may have kept VT out of the ACC, with BC & Miami to 12. Virginia Tech then ends up in the SEC years later when TAMU begs for admission.

Interesting I would never have thoughtthe acc would have any interest in Kentucky at all. Vanderbilt yes Kentucky not so much

I recall reading in the Wash Post in the early 1990s that some officials at the University of Georgia wanted to move the Bulldogs to the ACC to enhance the school's growing academic reputation. The article was published just after Florida State accepted the ACC's invitation. I thought it was interesting but didn't think it would ever happen. Actually I was really disappointed that the ACC didn't offer Miami. I believe Miami wanted to join the ACC with FSU, but the ACC was turned off by its "outlaw" reputation.

(06-21-2014 09:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Unimaginably huge.

UK would have carried the ACC during those thin years in the 2000s.

Ultimately it may have kept VT out of the ACC, with BC & Miami to 12. Virginia Tech then ends up in the SEC years later when TAMU begs for admission.

Indeed. Their one national championship in 2012 would have made the ACC's five championships seem puny. Unless, of course, you referring to their football team.

(06-21-2014 10:06 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I recall reading in the Wash Post in the early 1990s that some officials at the University of Georgia wanted to move the Bulldogs to the ACC to enhance the school's growing academic reputation. The article was published just after Florida State accepted the ACC's invitation. I thought it was interesting but didn't think it would ever happen. Actually I was really disappointed that the ACC didn't offer Miami. I believe Miami wanted to join the ACC with FSU, but the ACC was turned off by its "outlaw" reputation.

Miami didn't have a basketball program at the time either which wasn't a must from an NCAA standpoint like it is today.

(06-21-2014 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 09:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Unimaginably huge.

UK would have carried the ACC during those thin years in the 2000s.

Ultimately it may have kept VT out of the ACC, with BC & Miami to 12. Virginia Tech then ends up in the SEC years later when TAMU begs for admission.

Indeed. Their one national championship in 2012 would have made the ACC's five championships seem puny. Unless, of course, you referring to their football team.

I mean by regular deep runs in the NCAAs while most of the ACC basketball conference was lost post BC, Miami, VT expansion.

(06-21-2014 11:00 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 10:06 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I recall reading in the Wash Post in the early 1990s that some officials at the University of Georgia wanted to move the Bulldogs to the ACC to enhance the school's growing academic reputation. The article was published just after Florida State accepted the ACC's invitation. I thought it was interesting but didn't think it would ever happen. Actually I was really disappointed that the ACC didn't offer Miami. I believe Miami wanted to join the ACC with FSU, but the ACC was turned off by its "outlaw" reputation.

Miami didn't have a basketball program at the time either which wasn't a must from an NCAA standpoint like it is today.

Miami had a program as of 1985. They had dropped it in 1972.

(06-21-2014 09:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How big would UK-UNC and UK-Duke be if they had done that?

Unimaginably huge.

UK would have carried the ACC during those thin years in the 2000s.

Ultimately it may have kept VT out of the ACC, with BC & Miami to 12. Virginia Tech then ends up in the SEC years later when TAMU begs for admission.

Would the SEC have added Louisville when Kentucky left, or would have it added Virginia Tech to replace Kentucky? Louisville was a I-A independent up through the 1995 football season (C-USA started football in 1996 with Louisville and five other schools). Virginia Tech joined the Big East for football only in 1991. Both had their other sports in the Metro until June 1995. Virginia Tech had the rest of its sports in the A-10 before becoming a full Big East member in July 2000.

If the SEC had taken Louisville, C-USA would have likely taken East Carolina sooner (ECU joined for football in 1997 and all sports in 2001 from the CAA). If the SEC had taken Virginia Tech, the Big East would have taken Cincinnati or Louisville, and again C-USA turns to East Carolina.

The real changes may have been for 2012-2014 - would West Virginia, Missouri, or Louisville/Virginia Tech been the SEC's choice for #14? Who would have replaced Maryland in the ACC? If Louisville and Virginia Tech are in the SEC, reuniting Pittsburgh and West Virginia may be too good to pass up for the ACC. If the SEC had still taken Texas A&M and Missouri, could the Big XII possibly have taken Virginia Tech and West Virginia, leaving TCU in the Big East/American? Could the Big 12 have gone to 12 with Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Cincinnati, and TCU?

I don't think Va Tech quite had the reputation back then. They were emerging from a reputation similar to what UCF has today or perhaps Utah before they joined the Pac-10.

(06-20-2014 10:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that it worked out best for all concerned that things played out as they did.

Well it's worked out fine for Kentucky...but I don't see how the ACC is better off without them.

(06-21-2014 02:12 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that it worked out best for all concerned that things played out as they did.

Well it's worked out fine for Kentucky...but I don't see how the ACC is better off without them.

The SEC might have replaced Kentucky with Florida State. That trade would not have made the ACC better off.

(06-21-2014 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:12 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that it worked out best for all concerned that things played out as they did.

Well it's worked out fine for Kentucky...but I don't see how the ACC is better off without them.

The SEC might have replaced Kentucky with Florida State. That trade would not have made the ACC better off.

Oh! I didn't realize we were assuming that. But the statement was "worked out best for all concerned" but Florida State, right now, would be better off in the SEC instead of facing a revenue gap and a less attractive schedule and playing in a less stable conference--so I would still quibble with it.