(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote: This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.
Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.
That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.
They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.
Lou, you are wrong on a number of points.
1. Clemson got extra time in the late 80's because they did not appeal their 2 years to the proper committee. Clemson got 2 years because they were caught red handed giving out CASH money at a time when the ACC was trying not the be the SEC.
2. The ACC demphasized football because of Duke in 1962 and the lack of football success that ensued is a result of that action. Not actions taken in the 70's, 80's or 90's. From the time the SEC left the SoCon, Duke had been to all four major bowls, the ACC had a tie to the Orange Bowl, MD had a national championship, Clemson had gone to three of the four, and even UNC had gone to three major bowls. For the conference 15 major bowls in 30 years until 1962.
Duke and Maryland walked away from national prominence in football.
Their decision - period. The 800 rule handicapped Clemson and SC on the football field - but the 800 rule was as much about keeping black players out of the ACC as demphazing football because after the 800 rule you did not need them on the football field for conference play.
3. After that, the ACC became a basketball conference and ACC tournament tickets were the coin of the realm. That's not something to disadvantage anyone - just the facts. Football did not reach its current import until the mid-90's. At what point in the distant past was the ACC to divine that football would become more lucrative than basketball and how was the conference to make that move if key members found it not in their best interest.
I can assure you that folks at WF and NC State are tired of new comers inability to distinguish between some **** that UNC and Duke pulls and the other two schools on Tobacco Road. Moreover, whenever UNC and Duke do anything, they first bring UVa in tow - so find another descriptor for your pejorative.
4. In the past, football success came with cheating, cash payoffs, bad player behavior and a host of things that a real academic institution does not want. Ironically, Florida had just this mentality for most of the 60's and early 70's, before finally pulling the trigger on SEC style cheating.
Maryland and UNC knew this first hand because of Jim Tatum from Oklahoma. That's why Tatum was not replaced with a big time coach when he left MD, and died on the way to UNC. UVa, Duke, UNC, VT, MD, and others in the SoCon saw it first hand at William and Mary in 1952 - this is what led the State of Virginia, to lean on VT (then running the SoCon) to do something about football. Even Duke with its vast endowment from the Duke family knew that football was a time bomb for them as they wanted to push themselves as close to the Ivy League as possible (not the sports league mind you).
In basketball you have only 3-6 numb nuts to cover for, pay off, and pass through school. You can hide 3-6 morons. You can't hide 30-50.
5. Has the conference done many favors for UNC, Duke, and UVa over the years? Yes. Did they favor UNC and Duke basketball? Yes. Did they make the Atlantic Division more difficult than the Coastal and more importantly did they put the best recruiting ground in the Coastal? Yes. Guess what - none of that affects FSU football.
6. When FSU football went into the crapper at the end of Bowdens tenure that was on YOU.
7. When NC State gutted its sports programs in the early 90's that was on THEM. Yes UNC egged it on, but NC State folk wielded the knives.
8. When VT football went into the crapper at the end of Beamers tenure that was on THEM.
9. When Clemson decided they would rather have civil war than get past Danny Ford - that was on them.
10. Whoever is at the top of the ACC in football or basketball will be favored. Sad but true. It's not a problem for YOU in football.
When you exaggerate what has happened or misunderstand how something came to be, you undercut your ability to point to something that is "unfair" now and say fix it.
![[Image: animated-baby-looks-then-cries.gif]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZrI2suZsZPo/VgVNvsFBtWI/AAAAAAAALN4/A_L8Wg--YJIFomiZFMwJepS9h5SkqK_YQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/animated-baby-looks-then-cries.gif)
