Great discussion guys.....Can someone please tell me what they know about Florida and Georgia wanting in the ACC in 1953-54 ? Why where they turned down ? I know Penn was interested also, but IVY stared in 1954.

(10-22-2022 10:10 PM)ACC1953! Wrote:  Great discussion guys.....Can someone please tell me what they know about Florida and Georgia wanting in the ACC in 1953-54 ? Why where they turned down ? I know Penn was interested also, but IVY stared in 1954.

There was an article written around the time of the ACC’s formation, when the Ivy was still informal. The reporter said Georgia and Florida were interested for various reasons including academics. I’ll have to track it down to refresh my memory.

Penn had a series going with Virginia at the time and wanted to remain relevant in athletics because they made a lot of money with Franklin Field and their TV contract. Ultimately, the Ivy schooos strong armed them into deemphasizing and the NCAA outlawed their TV deal.

(10-22-2022 12:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:23 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 11:40 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  Depending on how you count it, the Southern Conference/ACC has had about 12 major test expansion vote. A test vote is a real vote not just a telephone call to take one's temperature.

In 1954 MD, UVa, Clemson, and SC voted against VT, all but UNC would have voted against WVa if the motion passed.
In 1965 VT tried again in earnest. Duke, UVa, and MD were still against VT.
Later in that decade the issue of Florida came up. Duke, UVa, and MD were against Florida.
In 69/70 UNC was trying to bring in Bill & Mary, UVa, MD, and Clemson were against W&M.
In 1971 Duke finally succeeds in running off SC with an assist from UNC who is still pissed at Frank McGuire
In 1977 lightening struck and all 7 schools were for GT.
In the mid 80's the issue of Penn would arise - Prior to the mid - 80's MD was a no. This time around Duke and WF were no's. UNC was a no at that time because they did not want the football competition.
In 1989 all but Duke are willing to add FSU. UNC however wants to abstain to keep the faculty Senate quiet.
In the mid 90's NC State, Miami, and FSU Athletic Directors begin real talks with the support of Corrigan and the Swofford.
If a single vote is held in 2003, Duke will vote to add Miami and all others will vote for Miami.
Swofford has the committee push forward a three school package and UNC recognizes and opening and clue in VT, the Va Governor, and the two state law firm McGuire Woods.
The ACC will not add a school that is an existential no to another school - that is a defacto veto and UVa had that over VT. By UNC announcing they would not vote for expansion, UVa had a gun stuck to its head.
By making the motion to add just the two, UVa is the first to open the door to cut off expansion. NC State follows the lead and suggest ND, ending the meeting.

Had a vote occurred that night on a 12th school - UNC, Duke, and NC State would have voted against Syracuse. If Clemson had nominated South Carolina that night, and SC's AD confirmed that they would come back if invited back, that would have passed with all favorable votes except Duke's.

It's not until you get into the 2011/12 time frame that decision making that looks like normal conference money deals frame the actual decision making for the league.

South Carolina was not considering returning to the ACC in 2003. That was just an article in a South Carolina newspaper that was mocked by South Carolina fans.

https://www.garnetandblackattack.com/226...s-left-acc



And I can't imagine that Penn was considering the ACC in the mid-1980s. If you meant to say Penn State, it was the Big East that rejected Penn State, not the ACC.

If Clemson had nominated South Carolina that night, and SC's AD confirmed that they would come back if invited back, that would have passed with all favorable votes except Duke's.

Yes I did mean to say PSU

In the mid 80's the issue of Penn would arise - Prior to the mid - 80's MD

IF CLEMSON HAD NOMINATED SOUTH CAROLINA THAT NIGHT. This has nothing to do with what SC would or would not have said in or out of public but SC and the ACC talked off and on for over 35 years after leaving the ACC.

As you no doubt recall the deal to add PSU to the Big 10 was between Illinois' PRESIDENT and PSU's PRESIDENT. Jo Pa and the kids were not really part of that deal. That the ACC considered inviting Penn State since the end of Segregation is not new to you is it? That the ACC could never get past MD on the issue when it was easiest is plain is it not?


Before you ask a girl out on date, do you need to know if she is considering you at that moment? I am not putting you down, but you are showing backwards, message board, writer hackitis. Time does not run backward - the arrow of time runs one way. That's what most media fail to understand and why they seem to understand what is happening now, because they think history is fungible and transitive instead of cumulative.

The Big East rejected Penn State in 1982 because PSU basketball is atrocious and the Big East was an all-basketball conference at the time.

The Big Ten also almost rejected Penn State in 1990, and supposedly Penn State would have gone to the ACC if the Big Ten had rejected them. PSU supposedly would have picked the ACC over the Big East in 1990 because they were still bitter at the Big East for rejecting them 8 years earlier.

But the ACC never once rejected PSU. I have no idea where you get that from.


And the Gene Sapkoff column in the Post and Courier (discussed in the Garnet and Black article I posted) is the only source I can find that suggested South Carolina join the ACC in 2003. There's no evidence that the South Carolina administration was considering the move. Sapkoff also wrote articles suggesting that South Carolina rejoin the ACC in 1990 and 2021.

And there is no evidence the SEC was considering Clemson and Oklahoma in the late 80’s, but JR insists, and I believe it falls under the same category as not being public knowledge.

Why do people on here claim knowledge of things that aren’t “public knowledge?” Even if there are some conference moves that have been discussed but never revealed to the public (which seems plausible enough), how would anybody on here know what those secretly discussed conference moves were?

(10-22-2022 11:13 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:23 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  South Carolina was not considering returning to the ACC in 2003. That was just an article in a South Carolina newspaper that was mocked by South Carolina fans.

https://www.garnetandblackattack.com/226...s-left-acc



And I can't imagine that Penn was considering the ACC in the mid-1980s. If you meant to say Penn State, it was the Big East that rejected Penn State, not the ACC.

If Clemson had nominated South Carolina that night, and SC's AD confirmed that they would come back if invited back, that would have passed with all favorable votes except Duke's.

Yes I did mean to say PSU

In the mid 80's the issue of Penn would arise - Prior to the mid - 80's MD

IF CLEMSON HAD NOMINATED SOUTH CAROLINA THAT NIGHT. This has nothing to do with what SC would or would not have said in or out of public but SC and the ACC talked off and on for over 35 years after leaving the ACC.

As you no doubt recall the deal to add PSU to the Big 10 was between Illinois' PRESIDENT and PSU's PRESIDENT. Jo Pa and the kids were not really part of that deal. That the ACC considered inviting Penn State since the end of Segregation is not new to you is it? That the ACC could never get past MD on the issue when it was easiest is plain is it not?


Before you ask a girl out on date, do you need to know if she is considering you at that moment? I am not putting you down, but you are showing backwards, message board, writer hackitis. Time does not run backward - the arrow of time runs one way. That's what most media fail to understand and why they seem to understand what is happening now, because they think history is fungible and transitive instead of cumulative.

The Big East rejected Penn State in 1982 because PSU basketball is atrocious and the Big East was an all-basketball conference at the time.

The Big Ten also almost rejected Penn State in 1990, and supposedly Penn State would have gone to the ACC if the Big Ten had rejected them. PSU supposedly would have picked the ACC over the Big East in 1990 because they were still bitter at the Big East for rejecting them 8 years earlier.

But the ACC never once rejected PSU. I have no idea where you get that from.


And the Gene Sapkoff column in the Post and Courier (discussed in the Garnet and Black article I posted) is the only source I can find that suggested South Carolina join the ACC in 2003. There's no evidence that the South Carolina administration was considering the move. Sapkoff also wrote articles suggesting that South Carolina rejoin the ACC in 1990 and 2021.

And there is no evidence the SEC was considering Clemson and Oklahoma in the late 80’s, but JR insists, and I believe it falls under the same category as not being public knowledge.

Why do people on here claim knowledge of things that aren’t “public knowledge?” Even if there are some conference moves that have been discussed but never revealed to the public (which seems plausible enough), how would anybody on here know what those secretly discussed conference moves were?

Well, if they happened, somebody has to know! Then those somebodies tell other bodies, and they tell JR's cousin, who then tells JR a little after Thanksgiving during the resumption of the Iron Bowl in 1948 when JR was 12.

(10-22-2022 10:10 PM)ACC1953! Wrote:  Great discussion guys.....Can someone please tell me what they know about Florida and Georgia wanting in the ACC in 1953-54 ? Why where they turned down ? I know Penn was interested also, but IVY stared in 1954.

Georgia has never expressed an interest in the ACC. Georgia has always been in the South, from a cultural standpoint and was never ideologically or socially isolated from the core of the SEC.

The entire situation at UF was being driven mostly by faculty concerns in the 1960's and while it had some traction the football side of the house would have always been very wary of entering a conference with Duke. Also I doubt UF actually pulls the trigger on such a move without GT and in the late 1960's GT thought they were great Independent material without understanding what the Braves and Falcons would do to their base in the City.

Conferences have "push" and "pull" factors that push and pull on the edges of the cultural margins. In the SEC Alabama is that "push" and it starts with multi-level layer of politics (not partisan politics mind you). Over the years they have pushed on Auburn, GT, and UF. Bama is also a "pull" for some like MSU, Ole Miss, and Tennessee as their very existence is defined in part by their opposition to Alabama football.

(10-22-2022 11:13 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:23 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  South Carolina was not considering returning to the ACC in 2003. That was just an article in a South Carolina newspaper that was mocked by South Carolina fans.

https://www.garnetandblackattack.com/226...s-left-acc



And I can't imagine that Penn was considering the ACC in the mid-1980s. If you meant to say Penn State, it was the Big East that rejected Penn State, not the ACC.

If Clemson had nominated South Carolina that night, and SC's AD confirmed that they would come back if invited back, that would have passed with all favorable votes except Duke's.

Yes I did mean to say PSU

In the mid 80's the issue of Penn would arise - Prior to the mid - 80's MD

IF CLEMSON HAD NOMINATED SOUTH CAROLINA THAT NIGHT. This has nothing to do with what SC would or would not have said in or out of public but SC and the ACC talked off and on for over 35 years after leaving the ACC.

As you no doubt recall the deal to add PSU to the Big 10 was between Illinois' PRESIDENT and PSU's PRESIDENT. Jo Pa and the kids were not really part of that deal. That the ACC considered inviting Penn State since the end of Segregation is not new to you is it? That the ACC could never get past MD on the issue when it was easiest is plain is it not?


Before you ask a girl out on date, do you need to know if she is considering you at that moment? I am not putting you down, but you are showing backwards, message board, writer hackitis. Time does not run backward - the arrow of time runs one way. That's what most media fail to understand and why they seem to understand what is happening now, because they think history is fungible and transitive instead of cumulative.

The Big East rejected Penn State in 1982 because PSU basketball is atrocious and the Big East was an all-basketball conference at the time.

The Big Ten also almost rejected Penn State in 1990, and supposedly Penn State would have gone to the ACC if the Big Ten had rejected them. PSU supposedly would have picked the ACC over the Big East in 1990 because they were still bitter at the Big East for rejecting them 8 years earlier.

But the ACC never once rejected PSU. I have no idea where you get that from.


And the Gene Sapkoff column in the Post and Courier (discussed in the Garnet and Black article I posted) is the only source I can find that suggested South Carolina join the ACC in 2003. There's no evidence that the South Carolina administration was considering the move. Sapkoff also wrote articles suggesting that South Carolina rejoin the ACC in 1990 and 2021.

And there is no evidence the SEC was considering Clemson and Oklahoma in the late 80’s, but JR insists, and I believe it falls under the same category as not being public knowledge.

Why do people on here claim knowledge of things that aren’t “public knowledge?” Even if there are some conference moves that have been discussed but never revealed to the public (which seems plausible enough), how would anybody on here know what those secretly discussed conference moves were?

More things are public knowledge than most realize but they lack the research skills to find the information despite the promise of the internet. The UVa Board of Visitor minutes for example is a treasure trove of interesting athletic anecdotes regarding the first 70 years of the 20th Century. UNC-Ch and Duke have undertaken aggressive scrubbing to the time period before 1972 - for a number of reasons the most obvious of course is race, but also gender, class, etc.

If you know who the actual Southern Conference then ACC reporter of record was that helps. Today it is Dave Teel. A generation before him it was Bill Brill - he of the absolute hatred of anything VT.

If you have or had or your family had or has any social connections inside Greensboro NC, you would have a leg up.

If you or your immediate family worked for, with, the old hands before they died you could get information first hand from administrators who were there or whose predecessors were there.

Just check the map and take into account the proximity of the Big 4 with each other before and after Wake Forest moved to Winston.

Relying on a reporter today to tell you the accurate history of something without documented research is a crapshoot.

(10-22-2022 11:13 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:23 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  South Carolina was not considering returning to the ACC in 2003. That was just an article in a South Carolina newspaper that was mocked by South Carolina fans.

https://www.garnetandblackattack.com/226...s-left-acc



And I can't imagine that Penn was considering the ACC in the mid-1980s. If you meant to say Penn State, it was the Big East that rejected Penn State, not the ACC.

If Clemson had nominated South Carolina that night, and SC's AD confirmed that they would come back if invited back, that would have passed with all favorable votes except Duke's.

Yes I did mean to say PSU

In the mid 80's the issue of Penn would arise - Prior to the mid - 80's MD

IF CLEMSON HAD NOMINATED SOUTH CAROLINA THAT NIGHT. This has nothing to do with what SC would or would not have said in or out of public but SC and the ACC talked off and on for over 35 years after leaving the ACC.

As you no doubt recall the deal to add PSU to the Big 10 was between Illinois' PRESIDENT and PSU's PRESIDENT. Jo Pa and the kids were not really part of that deal. That the ACC considered inviting Penn State since the end of Segregation is not new to you is it? That the ACC could never get past MD on the issue when it was easiest is plain is it not?


Before you ask a girl out on date, do you need to know if she is considering you at that moment? I am not putting you down, but you are showing backwards, message board, writer hackitis. Time does not run backward - the arrow of time runs one way. That's what most media fail to understand and why they seem to understand what is happening now, because they think history is fungible and transitive instead of cumulative.

The Big East rejected Penn State in 1982 because PSU basketball is atrocious and the Big East was an all-basketball conference at the time.

The Big Ten also almost rejected Penn State in 1990, and supposedly Penn State would have gone to the ACC if the Big Ten had rejected them. PSU supposedly would have picked the ACC over the Big East in 1990 because they were still bitter at the Big East for rejecting them 8 years earlier.

But the ACC never once rejected PSU. I have no idea where you get that from.


And the Gene Sapkoff column in the Post and Courier (discussed in the Garnet and Black article I posted) is the only source I can find that suggested South Carolina join the ACC in 2003. There's no evidence that the South Carolina administration was considering the move. Sapkoff also wrote articles suggesting that South Carolina rejoin the ACC in 1990 and 2021.

And there is no evidence the SEC was considering Clemson and Oklahoma in the late 80’s, but JR insists, and I believe it falls under the same category as not being public knowledge.

Why do people on here claim knowledge of things that aren’t “public knowledge?” Even if there are some conference moves that have been discussed but never revealed to the public (which seems plausible enough), how would anybody on here know what those secretly discussed conference moves were?

You could gain more ACC insider knowledge in the Young Men's Bible Class, First Presbyterian Church, Greensboro, NC, on any Sunday, than you could get by reading this board for years.

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-23-2022 05:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

Arrogant private school administrators have made or influenced a lot of bad decisions. Just think, Neil, if it hadn't been for the arrogance of one school's athletic director, the ACC might have expanded from eight to ten with Florida State and Syracuse in the early 90's.

If these moves occurred, would a lineup like this be plausible?

ACC

Atlantic: Boston College, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech

Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Wake Forest

(10-25-2022 06:39 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  If these moves occurred, would a lineup like this be plausible?

ACC

Atlantic: Boston College, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech

Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Wake Forest

I still think they’d do some sort of zipper to keep the FL schools in opposite divisions

(10-25-2022 07:33 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 06:39 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  If these moves occurred, would a lineup like this be plausible?

ACC

Atlantic: Boston College, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech

Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Wake Forest

I still think they’d do some sort of zipper to keep the FL schools in opposite divisions

Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, Maryland, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Wait…

(10-25-2022 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

Arrogant private school administrators have made or influenced a lot of bad decisions. Just think, Neil, if it hadn't been for the arrogance of one school's athletic director, the ACC might have expanded from eight to ten with Florida State and Syracuse in the early 90's.

So that had an actual shot?!?

I seem to recall a certain Commissioner reciting how he had to beg and plead to get the votes necessary to expand by ONE and that vote was tied 4-4 between FSU and SU.

Wouldn't that vote have been unnecessary IF the conference truly wanted to expand to 10? Or at best the vote for #10 would have been between Miami and SU since the idea of expansion of the ACC was about getting FSU on board before the SEC grabbed them.

But then that particular conference Commissioner talked about how just getting the 8 to agree to expand by 1 was like pulling teeth.

And yes, I still believe to this day the GREATEST single team expansion in the modern history of conference realignment was the Seminoles. And it's not even close in my mind.

Anyway, as I stated in the prior post. The ACC has made the most head-scratching decisions of any P5 conference in the modern football era but it is still thriving.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-25-2022 11:36 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

Arrogant private school administrators have made or influenced a lot of bad decisions. Just think, Neil, if it hadn't been for the arrogance of one school's athletic director, the ACC might have expanded from eight to ten with Florida State and Syracuse in the early 90's.

So that had an actual shot?!?

I seem to recall a certain Commissioner reciting how he had to beg and plead to get the votes necessary to expand by ONE and that vote was tied 4-4 between FSU and SU.

Wouldn't that vote have been unnecessary IF the conference truly wanted to expand to 10? Or at best the vote for #10 would have been between Miami and SU since the idea of expansion of the ACC was about getting FSU on board before the SEC grabbed them.

But then that particular conference Commissioner talked about how just getting the 8 to agree to expand by 1 was like pulling teeth.

And yes, I still believe to this day the GREATEST single team expansion in the modern history of conference realignment was the Seminoles. And it's not even close in my mind.

Anyway, as I stated in the prior post. The ACC has made the most head-scratching decisions of any P5 conference in the modern football era but it is still thriving.

Cheers,
Neil

That 4-4 was the result of a hypothetical Corrigan tossed out at a meeting. That was not a vote. Duke has opposed all expansions because of ACC basketball tournament books and to avoid the numbers in the ACC reaching a point that they could not veto items just by getting UNC to go along with them.

As to the actual vote regarding FSU, what happened was that UNC-Ch did not cast a vote and hung up on the conference call thinking FSU was in. They had to be called afterward and made to vote on the record because of the need for 3/4th plus one.


What folks can not comprehend is that ACC Baskteball Tournament books were the foundation of the Duke, UNC, MD, UVa, NC State, and WF booster club structure. Each new member cut into those books. It mattered then because you had to win the tourney to go to the NCAA, the value of the books did not fade until well into the 2000's - almost 15 years after big NCAA tournament expansion.

IIRC at their most valuable, it took an ANNUAL contribution of over $10K to get the right to purchase 2 books at UNC and Duke as far back as the early 80's. That's about 30K in today's money. To get four you had to cough up 50K A YEAR. Even at MD, State, and Wake that price tag was about 5K and 20K back in the day.

Your social status back in the day in central NC could be pegged to you having a ticket for day 2 or 3.

(10-25-2022 02:32 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 11:36 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

Arrogant private school administrators have made or influenced a lot of bad decisions. Just think, Neil, if it hadn't been for the arrogance of one school's athletic director, the ACC might have expanded from eight to ten with Florida State and Syracuse in the early 90's.

So that had an actual shot?!?

I seem to recall a certain Commissioner reciting how he had to beg and plead to get the votes necessary to expand by ONE and that vote was tied 4-4 between FSU and SU.

Wouldn't that vote have been unnecessary IF the conference truly wanted to expand to 10? Or at best the vote for #10 would have been between Miami and SU since the idea of expansion of the ACC was about getting FSU on board before the SEC grabbed them.

But then that particular conference Commissioner talked about how just getting the 8 to agree to expand by 1 was like pulling teeth.

And yes, I still believe to this day the GREATEST single team expansion in the modern history of conference realignment was the Seminoles. And it's not even close in my mind.

Anyway, as I stated in the prior post. The ACC has made the most head-scratching decisions of any P5 conference in the modern football era but it is still thriving.

Cheers,
Neil

That 4-4 was the result of a hypothetical Corrigan tossed out at a meeting. That was not a vote. Duke has opposed all expansions because of ACC basketball tournament books and to avoid the numbers in the ACC reaching a point that they could not veto items just by getting UNC to go along with them.

As to the actual vote regarding FSU, what happened was that UNC-Ch did not cast a vote and hung up on the conference call thinking FSU was in. They had to be called afterward and made to vote on the record because of the need for 3/4th plus one.


What folks can not comprehend is that ACC Baskteball Tournament books were the foundation of the Duke, UNC, MD, UVa, NC State, and WF booster club structure. Each new member cut into those books. It mattered then because you had to win the tourney to go to the NCAA, the value of the books did not fade until well into the 2000's - almost 15 years after big NCAA tournament expansion.

IIRC at their most valuable, it took an ANNUAL contribution of over $10K to get the right to purchase 2 books at UNC and Duke as far back as the early 80's. That's about 30K in today's money. To get four you had to cough up 50K A YEAR. Even at MD, State, and Wake that price tag was about 5K and 20K back in the day.

Your social status back in the day in central NC could be pegged to you having a ticket for day 2 or 3.

When I first joined the Rams Club, it was basically by invitation only. The Rams Club did not advertise for members, and there wasn't any printed material with instructions on how to join. The folks that held those Tournament tickets would rather pony up extra dollars rather than expand the circle of membership.
ACC tournament tickets were in much higher demand and more greatly valued in Greensboro in 1974 than Final Four tickets. Both events were held in the Greensboro Coliseum that year.
That final four included: UCLA , Marquette, Kansas and NC State.
BTW 1974 was the very first sellout of a Final Four Tournament.

(10-25-2022 02:32 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 11:36 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I know some folks here hate hypothetical retroactives and if you fall into that camp just pass in this thread.

So we all know the story of the 2003-2005 ACC expansion and how Syracuse got traded out for VT, but let’s pretend for a moment that the number crunchers at ESPN had determined that they would get more bang for their buck with a stronger northeastern presence and urged the ACC to take Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt.

Back in June 2003 ND supposedly was willing to be a partial football member for 4 games a year for 7 years and then become a full member at the end of that time period IF the ACC added Miami, VT, BC, Cuse, and Pitt but with UNC and Duke dead set against any expansion beyond just Miami to get to 10 it got no real traction.

Imagine the ACC media contracts today if they had been willing to do this back then. I still remember the post by El Kabong over on ND Nation hinting this was happening.

Of course I should add that when it came out there was a possibility of this happening the ND fans and donors revolted and wanted Malloy's head for even suggesting it.

It's remarkable though how often the ACC missed the mark from the now SEC schools leaving the Southern Conference to form the SEC, the ACC eventually leaving the Southern Conference to go small (when every other major conference had already been smaller) to the ACC's going to 8 to 9 (with FSU) one of the last conferences to start going bigger when they had the chance to get FSU and Miami or FSU and Syracuse to get to 10. A focus of basketball over football. To the mess of getting to 12. It's a miracle, to me at least, the conference is still standing.

I guess history shows that while the ACC has made some head-scratching decisions, they are still thriving. Which is a good thing for my Orange since without the ACC we might be like UConn today.

Cheers,
Neil

Arrogant private school administrators have made or influenced a lot of bad decisions. Just think, Neil, if it hadn't been for the arrogance of one school's athletic director, the ACC might have expanded from eight to ten with Florida State and Syracuse in the early 90's.

So that had an actual shot?!?

I seem to recall a certain Commissioner reciting how he had to beg and plead to get the votes necessary to expand by ONE and that vote was tied 4-4 between FSU and SU.

Wouldn't that vote have been unnecessary IF the conference truly wanted to expand to 10? Or at best the vote for #10 would have been between Miami and SU since the idea of expansion of the ACC was about getting FSU on board before the SEC grabbed them.

But then that particular conference Commissioner talked about how just getting the 8 to agree to expand by 1 was like pulling teeth.

And yes, I still believe to this day the GREATEST single team expansion in the modern history of conference realignment was the Seminoles. And it's not even close in my mind.

Anyway, as I stated in the prior post. The ACC has made the most head-scratching decisions of any P5 conference in the modern football era but it is still thriving.

Cheers,
Neil

That 4-4 was the result of a hypothetical Corrigan tossed out at a meeting. That was not a vote. Duke has opposed all expansions because of ACC basketball tournament books and to avoid the numbers in the ACC reaching a point that they could not veto items just by getting UNC to go along with them.

As to the actual vote regarding FSU, what happened was that UNC-Ch did not cast a vote and hung up on the conference call thinking FSU was in. They had to be called afterward and made to vote on the record because of the need for 3/4th plus one.


What folks can not comprehend is that ACC Baskteball Tournament books were the foundation of the Duke, UNC, MD, UVa, NC State, and WF booster club structure. Each new member cut into those books. It mattered then because you had to win the tourney to go to the NCAA, the value of the books did not fade until well into the 2000's - almost 15 years after big NCAA tournament expansion.

IIRC at their most valuable, it took an ANNUAL contribution of over $10K to get the right to purchase 2 books at UNC and Duke as far back as the early 80's. That's about 30K in today's money. To get four you had to cough up 50K A YEAR. Even at MD, State, and Wake that price tag was about 5K and 20K back in the day.

Your social status back in the day in central NC could be pegged to you having a ticket for day 2 or 3.

Yes, poor choice of words on my part. Probably should have called it a "straw poll". Corrigan contacted both Crouthamel at SU and Goin at FSU though to assess their interest in possibly joining the ACC.

Didn't know about UNC-CH (assume president/chancellor) hanging up on the conference call when the vote to accept FSU was taking place, mistakenly believing it was a done deal. The fact that they needed that 6th vote to officially invite the Seminoles and had to get him back on phone to vote officially is again, head-scratching. My wild guess on the two nay votes - Duke for sure and perhaps Maryland? Again just a guess.

And your post just points out how out of touch the ACC was at that time in terms of the importance football would soon have in college athletics and to individual conferences as well. Even the Big East realized this and tried its best to get a functioning football conference created but it was ultimately doomed to failure. And the reason makes little sense to me.

Did no one think that two programs could be invited and that those two programs would have to settle for less tickets for the ACC basketball tourney in order to become a member? I mean I could see SU possibly declining for that reason back then BUT would FSU or Miami turn down an invite because of that? I'm probably missing something here.

Hopefully the GoR will allow the conference enough time to stabilize. Wonder how Phillips made out (or is making out) with his rumored analysis of all the programs status in terms of football investment. Not sure if this planned analysis was hinted at as far back as 2018 - mainly curious because that was when Syracuse FINALLY decided to improve the Dome and other athletic facilities or is it a new thing?

Regardless, like I have said in other posts I am grateful that the ACC is still thriving at this time and hope all members do what is necessary to survive the upcoming conference realignments.

Cheers,
Neil