(09-28-2015 09:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:05 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:44 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think we need to keep in mind that no matter how much UNC may have wanted to keep Mack Brown, it wasn't going to happen. Whenever Carolina might discover another jewel like Brown, they know that it's only a matter of time before he leaves for a destination job. That's a treadmill they will never be able to get off.

I think UVa would be in that same category. Both schools' best bet for winning consistently is to find a coach who is good, but not so good that the A-list teams will poach him. So is that realism, or does it mean they don't care about winning?

You say that but it was TEXAS that took him. There are few schools in the country that will be able to keep their coach if the Horns come calling.

However, you do raise a good point. Having a good coach is a two edged sword for a school like UNC. Eventually some big school will come calling. We need to find a David Cutcliffe...good coach who decided to spurn the overtures of bigger schools.

The key there is age. Cutcliffe is too old to start over. Mack Brown wasn't (at the time). UNC may be well-served hiring an older coach...

We did in Butch Davis.

And you made him the scapegoat for academic fraud that was in place long before he got there in an attempt to shield men's basketball from scrutiny.

How'd that work out for you?

Wrong. He was fired for impermissible benefits to certain players--ie Marvin Austin, etc. His hiring of known offender John Blake was his undoing. At the time he was fired, most of us didn't know how far back the academic scandal went so it appeared he "let it go on". The academic part was an add on later but the damage was already done.

I tend to think Butch Davis would still be coaching at UNC - and the Tar Heels would be a lot more relevant - if Butch had never hired John Blake. Big mistake. But it is true that cheating went on at UNC long before Davis was ever hired himself...

It's actually worse than that. I believe if it weren't for John Blake the academic scandal wouldn't have come out either. The NCAA never would have come around and none of that stuff would have been discovered (at least not to the degree where it is right now)

It's true that UNC and UVA (and almost everybody) won't hold a coach if Texas or Alabama come calling.

But UNC or UVA should not just concede that anyone with success will be gone. TCU has held onto Patterson through many suitors, as has Oklahoma State with Gundy, Baylor with Briles, Utah with Whittingham. Those schools should not be able to out-resource and out-facility UNC and UVA.

I'll buy that argument at Wake or Syracuse where there are certain insurmountable things that limit the ceiling. You get a gem at one of those schools, you thank them for their service and move on.

There is nothing at UNC or Virginia that limits the ceiling, and there should be nothing except the will that prevents them from retaining a coach vs. 95% of suitors.

(09-29-2015 09:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that UNC and UVA (and almost everybody) won't hold a coach if Texas or Alabama come calling.

But UNC or UVA should not just concede that anyone with success will be gone. TCU has held onto Patterson through many suitors, as has Oklahoma State with Gundy, Baylor with Briles, Utah with Whittingham. Those schools should not be able to out-resource and out-facility UNC and UVA.

I'll buy that argument at Wake or Syracuse where there are certain insurmountable things that limit the ceiling. You get a gem at one of those schools, you thank them for their service and move on.

There is nothing at UNC or Virginia that limits the ceiling, and there should be nothing except the will that prevents them from retaining a coach vs. 95% of suitors.

For the most part I think you're right but some of it is timing too. If Mack Brown had left Texas before Briles took the Baylor job, Briles would probably be at Texas. The only other job Briles would take is probably the A&M job. Dude loves Texas.

Gundy is not leaving his alma mater unless it's something ridiculous. Whittingham is Mormon so BYU or Utah are great fits for him and his family. Patterson staying at TCU fits the mold and that's what we need. Unfortunately, finding one is proving to be tougher than we thought.

By the way, we did upgrade our hiring with Butch Davis. That didn't turn out so well so now everyone is super sensitive.

(09-29-2015 09:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that UNC and UVA (and almost everybody) won't hold a coach if Texas or Alabama come calling.

But UNC or UVA should not just concede that anyone with success will be gone. TCU has held onto Patterson through many suitors, as has Oklahoma State with Gundy, Baylor with Briles, Utah with Whittingham. Those schools should not be able to out-resource and out-facility UNC and UVA.

I'll buy that argument at Wake or Syracuse where there are certain insurmountable things that limit the ceiling. You get a gem at one of those schools, you thank them for their service and move on.

There is nothing at UNC or Virginia that limits the ceiling, and there should be nothing except the will that prevents them from retaining a coach vs. 95% of suitors.

Why do folks continue to put SU and Wake in the same category? The only thing the 2 schools have in common is that they are both private institutions, and both schools were bad in fb last year. That's it! Syracuse is a very large private school thats closer in size to Clemson than Wake, with an athletic budget and football history and tradition that is much closer to FSU than Wake. And SU has never lost a fb coach to any other school. The NFL has been the culprit who keeps taking SU's coaches.

(09-29-2015 10:17 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that UNC and UVA (and almost everybody) won't hold a coach if Texas or Alabama come calling.

But UNC or UVA should not just concede that anyone with success will be gone. TCU has held onto Patterson through many suitors, as has Oklahoma State with Gundy, Baylor with Briles, Utah with Whittingham. Those schools should not be able to out-resource and out-facility UNC and UVA.

I'll buy that argument at Wake or Syracuse where there are certain insurmountable things that limit the ceiling. You get a gem at one of those schools, you thank them for their service and move on.

There is nothing at UNC or Virginia that limits the ceiling, and there should be nothing except the will that prevents them from retaining a coach vs. 95% of suitors.

Why do folks continue to put SU and Wake in the same category? The only thing the 2 schools have in common is that they are both private institutions, and both schools were bad in fb last year. That's it! Syracuse is a very large private school thats closer in size to Clemson than Wake, with an athletic budget and football history and tradition that is much closer to FSU than Wake. And SU has never lost a fb coach to any other school. The NFL has been the culprit who keeps taking SU's coaches.

I apologize. I just grabbed the first two schools that came to mind with lowish ceilings. I don't mean that your ceilings are exactly the same, or that Syracuse's isn't higher than Wake's. I could have used BC as well, or instead of Wake. But nobody is going to think twice about a coach leaving a school with <40k attendance and/or a dearth of local talent.

(09-29-2015 12:07 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 10:17 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that UNC and UVA (and almost everybody) won't hold a coach if Texas or Alabama come calling.

But UNC or UVA should not just concede that anyone with success will be gone. TCU has held onto Patterson through many suitors, as has Oklahoma State with Gundy, Baylor with Briles, Utah with Whittingham. Those schools should not be able to out-resource and out-facility UNC and UVA.

I'll buy that argument at Wake or Syracuse where there are certain insurmountable things that limit the ceiling. You get a gem at one of those schools, you thank them for their service and move on.

There is nothing at UNC or Virginia that limits the ceiling, and there should be nothing except the will that prevents them from retaining a coach vs. 95% of suitors.

Why do folks continue to put SU and Wake in the same category? The only thing the 2 schools have in common is that they are both private institutions, and both schools were bad in fb last year. That's it! Syracuse is a very large private school thats closer in size to Clemson than Wake, with an athletic budget and football history and tradition that is much closer to FSU than Wake. And SU has never lost a fb coach to any other school. The NFL has been the culprit who keeps taking SU's coaches.

I apologize. I just grabbed the first two schools that came to mind with lowish ceilings. I don't mean that your ceilings are exactly the same, or that Syracuse's isn't higher than Wake's. I could have used BC as well, or instead of Wake. But nobody is going to think twice about a coach leaving a school with <40k attendance and/or a dearth of local talent.

As far as football coaches leaving, John Mackovic, Al Groh, & Jim Caldwell all left Wake for the NFL. Bill Dooley & Jim Grobe retired. That covers Wake coaches since 1978.

Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Wait. What? WTH does architecture have to do with football?

I'll buy your ROTC argument, but claiming that an architecture program has any bearing on any non-Harry Potter-related athletics is a little much.

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I agree. I think lumberpack brings a lot to the table generally...but most of this is nonsense.

(09-30-2015 09:39 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I agree. I think lumberpack brings a lot to the table generally...but most of this is nonsense.

What Lou wrote.

(09-30-2015 09:39 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I agree. I think lumberpack brings a lot to the table generally...but most of this is nonsense.

Rarely.

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "incentivize football success". If, basically you are saying give a bigger share of the media money to FSU and Clemson at the expense of the other members, I don't ever see that happening. I also don't see that strategy improving football anywhere except at the schools that already make it their school's #1 priority.

I don't think it's accurate to say none of the "non-football schools" aren't trying to compete at a higher level. UNC, for one, has tried very hard. Too hard. And they are paying an awful price for it. Just look at all those empty seats in Kenan Stadium. I don't think they are going to try that hard again for a very long time. And other schools in the conference that have shared their values for decades are going to take that to heart.

I understand that some FSU fans are frustrated. Your values are different, and by the looks of things they are going to stay that way. Seems to me you have a decision to make about whom you want to associate with.

UNC's mistakes in no way justify other schools "not trying" to be great at football. If any school decides not to "try" then I believe the other programs would be justified in expelling that school from the league (this is, after all, primarily a football conference!).

IMO the best way to "incentivize football success" is, not to give more to the top, but to take away from the bottom. That's how the SEC does it - no bowl share for teams which are not bowl-eligible (and that should apply both to teams on probation as well as teams with less than 6 wins). That does 2 things right away:

1) bottom tier teams would stop scheduling OOC games they can't win because they would need to be bowl-eligible to get a cut of the bowl money

2) it puts a little more money into the programs which ARE bowl-eligible; not enough to make it impossible for others to catch up, but enough to make the successful programs feel good about it.

The SEC already does this - has been doing it for years. I see nothing remotely controversial about it; this is something the ACC should adopt immediately (IMO).

(10-01-2015 09:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "incentivize football success". If, basically you are saying give a bigger share of the media money to FSU and Clemson at the expense of the other members, I don't ever see that happening. I also don't see that strategy improving football anywhere except at the schools that already make it their school's #1 priority.

I don't think it's accurate to say none of the "non-football schools" aren't trying to compete at a higher level. UNC, for one, has tried very hard. Too hard. And they are paying an awful price for it. Just look at all those empty seats in Kenan Stadium. I don't think they are going to try that hard again for a very long time. And other schools in the conference that have shared their values for decades are going to take that to heart.

I understand that some FSU fans are frustrated. Your values are different, and by the looks of things they are going to stay that way. Seems to me you have a decision to make about whom you want to associate with.

It doesn't need to be earmarked for FSU and Clemson. Other conferences have tried those kinds of arrangements, and I don't favor that at all. If FSU is sucking, and Duke is doing well, they should get it. It would be as simple as designating a larger share of bowl or playoff money to the school that earns it. An "eat what you kill" arrangement.

1) It both allows the schools that the ACC depends on for football success, FSU and Clemson, to stay at least a little closer financially to the schools they compete against for recruits

2) It incentivizes schools to make decisions by putting a potential reward/cost on those. Have a $5M buyout for a coach that sucks? Weigh that against $2M more per year you might get by qualifying for bowl games/better bowl games.

It makes NO sense not to consider this. Duke absolutely should be getting a better take than Virginia from the ACC. Duke should without question be rewarded for making the move it's made in the last several years.

The only defense of not doing this is yours, the "It's not important for ACC football to be good, we don't care if ACC football is good, and it's rather gauche that a couple schools are good in football."

A lot of people in the ACC world feel that way. Then just come out and say it, but this lip service without backing it up is just silly.

Would the same be done with the NCAA basketball credits?

(10-01-2015 09:53 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Would the same be done with the NCAA basketball credits?

ABSOLUTELY. I have zero problem with that, for the same reason.

I don't think it's necessary, because the ACC doesn't have a basketball problem it needs to solve, but if it was required to get this through, then fine. I've always been fine with it.

(10-01-2015 09:48 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:32 AM)nole Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Why do some people think that elite, female dominated universities are going to be able to field robust football programs? UVa's male enrollment is down to about 43%, UNC's is lower at around 40%.

UNC in particular is hamstrung by having no engineering programs, no vet school, no ag school, no architecture school, etc., etc. Those programs are at NC State. UVa has engineering and architecture, but they aren't the engineering/military preparation center that is VT. VT and NC State remain male oriented universities for the time being.

To hide more than a few dumb male jocks, UVa and UNC has to have the Administration, Boosters, Faculty, and STUDENT BODY on board.

If a kid really wants a degree, and it's not in engineering they can go to Duke where the degree name is such that they can take any kid that would otherwise do well at UNC, NC State, UVa, or VT. The difference between a 3 star kid with a old two score SAT of 1300 and a 4 star kid with a score of 800 is that the 3 star can stay and school, get better, and graduate. The four start kid will have to be passed along with all the negatives that come with that. The current Duke formula is 3 star kids who are also boarderline egg heads. Not as physically talented, but smarter.

Some schools in the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, and P12 value football above all else, above all integrity with no shame whatsoever. Most of the schools in the ACC and P12, as well as about half of the B10 schools have alums, administration, faculty, and students who are embarrassed by dumb and ill behaved jocks.

The SEC, most of the B12 and a few others in the ACC, B10 and P12 have no such ethical handicaps.

UNC cheated like hell for years and still could not put a big winner on the football field. You think they are going to try that again in your lifetime? Why do you think attendance is about 50% at Kenan? It's a show of embarrassment and disapproval as much as it is mediocre football.

This slap that some ACC universities are not committed to football is really translated as follows: "Some ACC universities are not willing to do anything to be successful at football".

Multiple points:

*One, FSU was a women's school for a huge percentage of it's history. It's majors all aligned with 'women's degrees'. It built a football school.

*Two, I guess low life schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, UF, Michigan are willing to do anything to be successful at football.

*Three, odd how ACC fanbases don't want to get into the muck of football....but are OK with it in basketball....as if it is clean (AAU anyone)? Got news for you....if you are willing to compete in basketball, you ALREADY MADE THE ETHICAL COMPROMISE.

*The rest is just odd excuse making.


The ACC has always wanted to be in major level athletics without really competing in football. As the revenue tilts toward football to a crazy degree......that has destroyed one conference (Big East) and damaging the ACC.

The ACC wants it's cake and eat it to.....it wants to pretend it isn't willing to sell out for athletics (everyone ignore basketball , half ass it in football, but get the big time money.


It won't last ACC.....you can't be half pregnant......you are in or you are out. The clock is ticking....only a matter of time.


And again, given the mindset described above, unless the ACC is willing to incentivize football success.......the decision is status quo and the clock will continue to count down.


THAT is what frustrates the very VERY few football schools in the ACC. The ACC really doesn't want to try.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "incentivize football success". If, basically you are saying give a bigger share of the media money to FSU and Clemson at the expense of the other members, I don't ever see that happening. I also don't see that strategy improving football anywhere except at the schools that already make it their school's #1 priority.

I don't think it's accurate to say none of the "non-football schools" aren't trying to compete at a higher level. UNC, for one, has tried very hard. Too hard. And they are paying an awful price for it. Just look at all those empty seats in Kenan Stadium. I don't think they are going to try that hard again for a very long time. And other schools in the conference that have shared their values for decades are going to take that to heart.

I understand that some FSU fans are frustrated. Your values are different, and by the looks of things they are going to stay that way. Seems to me you have a decision to make about whom you want to associate with.

It doesn't need to be earmarked for FSU and Clemson. Other conferences have tried those kinds of arrangements, and I don't favor that at all. If FSU is sucking, and Duke is doing well, they should get it. It would be as simple as designating a larger share of bowl or playoff money to the school that earns it. An "eat what you kill" arrangement.

1) It both allows the schools that the ACC depends on for football success, FSU and Clemson, to stay at least a little closer financially to the schools they compete against for recruits

2) It incentivizes schools to make decisions by putting a potential reward/cost on those. Have a $5M buyout for a coach that sucks? Weigh that against $2M more per year you might get by qualifying for bowl games/better bowl games.

It makes NO sense not to consider this. Duke absolutely should be getting a better take than Virginia from the ACC. Duke should without question be rewarded for making the move it's made in the last several years.

The only defense of not doing this is yours, the "It's not important for ACC football to be good, we don't care if ACC football is good, and it's rather gauche that a couple schools are good in football."

A lot of people in the ACC world feel that way. Then just come out and say it, but this lip service without backing it up is just silly.

Spot on.