Why did you 8 bring the other 8 in? Are the "other 8" delivering?

(04-11-2015 02:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Why did you 8 bring the other 8 in? Are the "other 8" delivering?

Only 6 of the current 15 members were in the league in 1953.

(04-11-2015 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 02:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Why did you 8 bring the other 8 in? Are the "other 8" delivering?

Only 6 of the current 15 members were in the league in 1953.

I know but I wanted to include South Carolina and Maryland in this conversation. Reason why is because of "changes". Seems to me that both South Carolina and Maryland left the ACC because of the future they each saw for the conference. I am curious as to what the remaining 6 think but also wanted to leave it open to the other two.

Did South Carolina foresee the current ACC? Did Maryland foresee the GoR, football success, ACC network, basketball success?

I also want to know if the 1953 six brought the additions in to do what they haven't been able to.

(04-11-2015 02:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I know but I wanted to include South Carolina and Maryland in this conversation. Reason why is because of "changes". Seems to me that both South Carolina and Maryland left the ACC because of the future they each saw for the conference. I am curious as to what the remaining 6 think but also wanted to leave it open to the other two.

Did South Carolina foresee the current ACC? Did Maryland foresee the GoR, football success, ACC network, basketball success?

I also want to know if the 1953 six brought the additions in to do what they haven't been able to.

South Carolina abandoned academics entirely in the pursuit of athletics. This is the wrong league if you want to throw academics overboard. How well has their race to the bottom worked in the SEC?

Maryland was horribly mismanaged, and they valued the Director's Cup, which you cannot feasibly win unless you pour MILLIONS of dollars into total revenue loss sports like field hockey, water polo, fencing, rowing, track and field, etc. Their desires and mismanagement meant something had to give. So they choose the short term bigger B1G paycheck instead of fix either the management or the fruitless pursuit of non-revenue sports. A very DC-ish decision for a very DC-ish school in a DC-ish state.

I maintain -- and I think most of the pre-2003 ACC at least would agree with me -- that the ACC has no desire to be the SEC. It wants to be the Pac-12 of the eastern seaboard.

The PAC 10 of the east has always been Swofford's goal.

I'm sorry for my ignorance, what does being the "PAC whatever"of the East even mean? The PAC is isolated while the ACC is surrounded. Is this about academics? If so then, smh!
We are fighting SEC (athletics first) and the Big Ten ( pretend academics first but really not as long as Athletics wins).
Are y'all talking about a mixture of public and private schools? That I can see and if so then a Private School is next to be added.

You can't look at it as bringing in "8". It just didn't happen like that. We were at 23 when the SEC 13 exited in 1933. We were at 17 when the ACC schools exited. VT and WVa would have been brought along had they not been instrumental in the bowl ban.

When SC left in 71 because of the 800 SAT rule, friction with UNC, and Frank McGuire being allowed to be his own athletic director, the ACC had a bye for the regular season finisher meaning you needed to win only two game to win the title. That was popular only with UNC. Florida sniffed around the ACC after SC left, but MD was against them. When GT was ready to rejoin a conference they were an easy addition that brought the Atlanta market and no football or basketball competition. That made 8.

South Carolina wandered in the wilderness for 20 years after leaving the ACC - it was not a smart decision for them at the time, but the SEC needing a 12th saved them.

When FSU was added, it was in response to Penn State going to the B10. Most of the league wanted to eventually add Penn State, but MD had always balked at them. They made 9. Once the nature of the SEC's 12 and playoff game was seen, the ACC wanted to add schools that would bolster football and protect against the Big East. As soon as FSU joined, FSU folks wanted to add Miami. Adding Miami was a no-brainer however the deal was worked with BC and Syracuse. The deal was handed off to Swofford and he did not have Duke and UNC onboard with the plan - they didn't want Syracuse. That allowed VT to blackmail UVa for their vote and UNC and Duke voting against expansion forced UVa to vote for VT so that expansion would be achieved to get Miami.

Adding VT was not viewed like adding a "new" school. Like GT, they had been a SoCon school.

The Maryland situation began when Len Bias died. The University Administration went ape **** crazy and the result was getting rid of the AD and Lefty. Then came the Bob Wade hire and Bobby Ross leaving after MD refused to give him and athletics a vote of confidence. As GTS noted, from that point forward, MD attempted to compete in all sports while the revenues dwindled and the competition for athletic entertainment dollars intensified in the DC/Baltimore metro. By the time that Gary William quit recruiting anyone with AAU ties, the football program also tanked, right at the time they were trying to improve Byrd Stadium - which had been allowed to become a dump.

MD's final exit was not about the money - it was about an agenda by the System President and a deep hatred of UNC, Duke, and new hatred of NC State for hiring Debbie Yow. MD didn't want to be in a "northern" ACC division and they knew that was coming with ND, Pitt, and Syracuse. That's why they ratted out the ACC expansion plan to Delany and screwed up PSU's move to the ACC.

I also agree with the PAC 12 comparison - that is the ACC's goal and many of the schools have a direct analogue in the P12. The reason for that goes back to the 1960's and the UNC system's attempt to model itself on the University of California System.

If you are grading schools since their addition to the ACC from FSU onward you have something like this:

VT - A
Louisville - A
FSU - A-
BC - B
Pitt - C
Syracuse - C
Miami - D

VT gets an A because of their carrying the league in football when FSU went into the tank - neither was expected. The VT addition was expected just to boost football crowds at UNC and Duke.

Louisville gets an A so far, they added footprint and a good football and great basketball program.

FSU gets an A- only because they waited too long to retire Bobby. That happened at least three years too long and the entire league suffered at renegotiation time. (You can also make a case that they deserve the full A)

BC added a market and also played some good football at a time when FSU was in the tank.

So far Pitt and Syracuse have added a market, but not a great deal else.

Miami is the only bust. Their football program immediately went into the tank and that's hurt the ACC as much as FSU waiting too long to retire Bowden. Unlike FSU, they don't have the great decade before the program tanked or the last three years of FSU's resurgence.

As far as doing something the core ACC schools could not do - the core ACC schools, WF, Duke, NC State, UNC, and UVa do not have a major bowl win since 1962. Every time NC State, UVa, or UNC appeared to be close to getting over the hump, they didn't. The fundamental reason is that there are too many P-5 schools carving up NC, Va, and SC recruiting.

Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992.

(04-11-2015 05:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I also agree with the PAC 12 comparison - that is the ACC's goal and many of the schools have a direct analogue in the P12. The reason for that goes back to the 1960's and the UNC system's attempt to model itself on the University of California System.

If you are grading schools since their addition to the ACC from FSU onward you have something like this:

VT - A
Louisville - A
FSU - A-
BC - B
Pitt - C
Syracuse - C
Miami - D

VT gets an A because of their carrying the league in football when FSU went into the tank - neither was expected. The VT addition was expected just to boost football crowds at UNC and Duke.

Louisville gets an A so far, they added footprint and a good football and great basketball program.

FSU gets an A- only because they waited too long to retire Bobby. That happened at least three years too long and the entire league suffered at renegotiation time. (You can also make a case that they deserve the full A)

BC added a market and also played some good football at a time when FSU was in the tank.

So far Pitt and Syracuse have added a market, but not a great deal else.

Miami is the only bust. Their football program immediately went into the tank and that's hurt the ACC as much as FSU waiting too long to retire Bowden. Unlike FSU, they don't have the great decade before the program tanked or the last three years of FSU's resurgence.

As far as doing something the core ACC schools could not do - the core ACC schools, WF, Duke, NC State, UNC, and UVa do not have a major bowl win since 1962. Every time NC State, UVa, or UNC appeared to be close to getting over the hump, they didn't. The fundamental reason is that there are too many P-5 schools carving up NC, Va, and SC recruiting.

Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992.

The bold is why I think there will always be an ACC. You five, I think, will always stick together. I think you five (and really the 8 P5 teams in NC/SC and Virginia) realize you can't change geography.

(04-11-2015 05:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I also agree with the PAC 12 comparison - that is the ACC's goal and many of the schools have a direct analogue in the P12. The reason for that goes back to the 1960's and the UNC system's attempt to model itself on the University of California System.

If you are grading schools since their addition to the ACC from FSU onward you have something like this:

VT - A
Louisville - A
FSU - A-
BC - B
Pitt - C
Syracuse - C
Miami - D

VT gets an A because of their carrying the league in football when FSU went into the tank - neither was expected. The VT addition was expected just to boost football crowds at UNC and Duke.

Louisville gets an A so far, they added footprint and a good football and great basketball program.

FSU gets an A- only because they waited too long to retire Bobby. That happened at least three years too long and the entire league suffered at renegotiation time. (You can also make a case that they deserve the full A)

BC added a market and also played some good football at a time when FSU was in the tank.

So far Pitt and Syracuse have added a market, but not a great deal else.

Miami is the only bust. Their football program immediately went into the tank and that's hurt the ACC as much as FSU waiting too long to retire Bowden. Unlike FSU, they don't have the great decade before the program tanked or the last three years of FSU's resurgence.

As far as doing something the core ACC schools could not do - the core ACC schools, WF, Duke, NC State, UNC, and UVa do not have a major bowl win since 1962. Every time NC State, UVa, or UNC appeared to be close to getting over the hump, they didn't. The fundamental reason is that there are too many P-5 schools carving up NC, Va, and SC recruiting.

Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992.

UNDERLINE: There's no way FSU is anything but an A (or A+ if that's an option). FSU won titleS in football an ACC championship in basketball, and has far and away the strongest overall athletic department in the conference.

BOLD: We were literally a #1-ranked men's basketball team part of last season (i.e. 50% of our time in the conference), women's basketball has made the tourney two years in a row (and won a game each year, I believe), and we played in the national title game in another of our big three sports. I get that football only played in (and won) one bowl (out of the two years), but what do you want? Pitt went to two bowls and a march madness. If you honestly think that's a C, then you are out of your mind.

(04-11-2015 05:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992.

Since 1953, Maryland has gone through two periods of football de-emphasis. The first period ran from 1954 to 1971. The second period started shortly after Len Bias' death in 1986 and may have ended upon Maryland's entrance in the Big Ten last fall.

The F*!$ did I just read from our resident NC State fan-ACC insider?

Football National Titles since FSU joined the ACC:
FSU - 3
ACC - 0

But a school with 0 national titles in any sport (according to some b*tch a** hoo fan) and a school that hasn't even completed its first ACC season are better additions. LMAO.

(04-12-2015 11:22 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The F*!$ did I just read from our resident NC State fan-ACC insider?

Football National Titles since FSU joined the ACC:
FSU - 3
ACC - 0

But a school with 0 national titles in any sport (according to some b*tch a** hoo fan) and a school that hasn't even completed its first ACC season are better additions. LMAO.

GT won a national title in '90 and Clemson in '81. Tack on another 10 years it is 3/2. FSU had a pretty special run between 93-99 which got 2 of their titles and precluded any other ACC teams from having a shot at them, including some legit Top 5 title contenders in other ACC teams in that time frame such as '97 UNC and '98 GT.

So for half your time frame you might as well gripe nobody but Nebraska out of the Big 12 was competing for titles in the 90's. Well DUH. They had a pretty special run there for a decade too.

I won't vouch for the initial argument at hand you're disagreeing with, I'm just saying you could have chosen your words a bit more wisely in disagreeing.

(04-12-2015 08:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:22 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The F*!$ did I just read from our resident NC State fan-ACC insider?

Football National Titles since FSU joined the ACC:
FSU - 3
ACC - 0

But a school with 0 national titles in any sport (according to some b*tch a** hoo fan) and a school that hasn't even completed its first ACC season are better additions. LMAO.

GT won a national title in '90 and Clemson in '81. Tack on another 10 years it is 3/2. FSU had a pretty special run between 93-99 which got 2 of their titles and precluded any other ACC teams from having a shot at them, including some legit Top 5 title contenders in other ACC teams in that time frame such as '97 UNC and '98 GT.

So for half your time frame you might as well gripe nobody but Nebraska out of the Big 12 was competing for titles in the 90's. Well DUH. They had a pretty special run there for a decade too.

I won't vouch for the initial argument at hand you're disagreeing with, I'm just saying you could have chosen your words a bit more wisely in disagreeing.

Excellent post. People forget (or never knew) just how good GT and Clemson football were during this time period. Add to that an occasional break-through team like Virginia or UNC.

Even after FSU joined the league, Mack Brown's UNC teams were really good too - basically never losing to anyone except FSU.

(04-12-2015 08:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:22 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The F*!$ did I just read from our resident NC State fan-ACC insider?

Football National Titles since FSU joined the ACC:
FSU - 3
ACC - 0

But a school with 0 national titles in any sport (according to some b*tch a** hoo fan) and a school that hasn't even completed its first ACC season are better additions. LMAO.

GT won a national title in '90 and Clemson in '81. Tack on another 10 years it is 3/2. FSU had a pretty special run between 93-99 which got 2 of their titles and precluded any other ACC teams from having a shot at them, including some legit Top 5 title contenders in other ACC teams in that time frame such as '97 UNC and '98 GT.

So for half your time frame you might as well gripe nobody but Nebraska out of the Big 12 was competing for titles in the 90's. Well DUH. They had a pretty special run there for a decade too.

I won't vouch for the initial argument at hand you're disagreeing with, I'm just saying you could have chosen your words a bit more wisely in disagreeing.

Have no idea why you took offense to my comment.

The only ACC team to win a football title since FSU joined the ACC has been...FSU, and FSU's done it thrice. Absolute fact. If you're not going to discuss my actual comment - as you say - then why even reply to me?

(04-12-2015 10:05 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Have no idea why you took offense to my comment.

The only ACC team to win a football title since FSU joined the ACC has been...FSU, and FSU's done it thrice. Absolute fact. If you're not going to discuss my actual comment - as you say - then why even reply to me?

You confuse offense with disagreement with tact.

And if you weren't in the league, UNC and GT would have had legit national title shots on the trot in '97 and '98. In much the same way Oklahoma would have had some shots if Nebraska were elsewhere in the 90's.

I agree with you FSU is more valuable than the most recent additions. But I disagree with the implication that FSU is the be all end all of ACC football. Cause it isn't.

The implication was that FSU was horribly ranked by the board's wannabe insider, and these things called facts were used to support that implication...

Quit reading into things that aren't there.

But because you brought it up, FSU has most definitely been the be all and end all of ACC football (ie, the "essential element", "the central part") since their admission into the league. To deny that is to deny Duke/UNC being the same on the basketball side.

(04-12-2015 11:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But because you brought it up, FSU has most definitely been the be all and end all of ACC football (ie, the "essential element", "the central part") since their admission into the league. To deny that is to deny Duke/UNC being the same on the basketball side.

If you think FSU is the football power equivalent of Duke or UNC on the hardwood you've been hitting the good stuff brah brah.

(04-12-2015 11:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The implication was that FSU was horribly ranked by the board's wannabe insider, and these things called facts were used to support that implication...

Quit reading into things that aren't there.

But because you brought it up, FSU has most definitely been the be all and end all of ACC football (ie, the "essential element", "the central part") since their admission into the league. To deny that is to deny Duke/UNC being the same on the basketball side.