CSNbbs

The aptly named 4-4-4 committee was very successful. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse there seems to be a need to add 2 more members. The original make up was 4 presidents, 4 faculty members, 4 athletic directors. Would you add one of these categories or something different? Maybe a student representative?

The 444 committee is critical to the ACC achieving its expansion goals. If the goal is to get Notre Dame, you would want to add members that appeal to ND. Would that be a faculty rep? Someone with a relationship with ND?

(04-07-2012 02:39 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]The aptly named 4-4-4 committee was very successful. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse there seems to be a need to add 2 more members. The original make up was 4 presidents, 4 faculty members, 4 athletic directors. Would you add one of these categories or something different? Maybe a student representative?

The 444 committee is critical to the ACC achieving its expansion goals. If the goal is to get Notre Dame, you would want to add members that appeal to ND. Would that be a faculty rep? Someone with a relationship with ND?

I'm not sure anyone less than the Pope can get Notre Dame to join the ACC right now.

There doesn't seem to be any hurry for anyone to go beyond 14.
The real question would be can anyone other than the ACC or the SEC get to 14?

(04-07-2012 06:43 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]There doesn't seem to be any hurry for anyone to go beyond 14.
The real question would be can anyone other than the ACC or the SEC get to 14?

Let's assume Big 12 gets UL and BYU to get back to 12. Could the power conferences that were at 12 get to 14? Yes. Would they want to? The answer appears to be 'No' unless it involves either ND or other teams from power conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

Based on the most recent comments by "The Commish", there seems to be no rush to get to 16. Given the volatile nature of the disgruntled Clemson fans around here, one wonders if it's more likely to return back to 12.

All that said, the only way I see the ACC going to 16 is if/when Notre Dame is either #15 or #16.

I'm surprised that while much of the talk out there currently is movement by FSU and Clemson along with GT and Miami to the Big 12, which probably won't happen, but talks may be under way with them, That the ACC dosen't have a plan to Yank away 2 potential Big12 invites in UL and UC from the 12 in a first strike. Everyone assumes Rutgers and UConn, but this would be a Blow to the 12 and giving the ACC 2 Very Good BB programs and Strong FB contenders now. Yeah the academics may not be way up there but Money talks these days.

(04-07-2012 10:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised that while much of the talk out there currently is movement by FSU and Clemson along with GT and Miami to the Big 12, which probably won't happen, but talks may be under way with them, That the ACC dosen't have a plan to Yank away 2 potential Big12 invites in UL and UC from the 12 in a first strike. Everyone assumes Rutgers and UConn, but this would be a Blow to the 12 and giving the ACC 2 Very Good BB programs and Strong FB contenders now. Yeah the academics may not be way up there but Money talks these days.

I still wish that the ACC had expanded with SU, Pitt, WVU, and UL. But it wasn't meant to be.

Don't see how UL makes it in now unless an armageddon meltdown takes place. And then would the Cards want to join?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-07-2012 10:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised that while much of the talk out there currently is movement by FSU and Clemson along with GT and Miami to the Big 12, which probably won't happen, but talks may be under way with them, That the ACC dosen't have a plan to Yank away 2 potential Big12 invites in UL and UC from the 12 in a first strike. Everyone assumes Rutgers and UConn, but this would be a Blow to the 12 and giving the ACC 2 Very Good BB programs and Strong FB contenders now. Yeah the academics may not be way up there but Money talks these days.

Sounds like sound the logic of a UL fan wanting to get into a major conference.

If UL and UC joined the ACC I'd be 100% in favor of FSU moving to the Big 12 with almost no questions asked.

(04-07-2012 11:09 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2012 10:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised that while much of the talk out there currently is movement by FSU and Clemson along with GT and Miami to the Big 12, which probably won't happen, but talks may be under way with them, That the ACC dosen't have a plan to Yank away 2 potential Big12 invites in UL and UC from the 12 in a first strike. Everyone assumes Rutgers and UConn, but this would be a Blow to the 12 and giving the ACC 2 Very Good BB programs and Strong FB contenders now. Yeah the academics may not be way up there but Money talks these days.

Sounds like sound the logic of a UL fan wanting to get into a major conference.

If UL and UC joined the ACC I'd be 100% in favor of FSU moving to the Big 12 with almost no questions asked.

If it were UL and ND would you feel the same?

What's not to like about UL, except maybe their academics? Everything else is great.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-07-2012 11:18 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]If it were UL and ND would you feel the same?

What's not to like about UL, except maybe their academics? Everything else is great.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think UL or UC are crap schools. I just pretty sure they don't carry a ton of weight nationally and wouldn't really strengthen the ACC. They'd keep the status quo which obviously isn't working.

If ND were added I wouldn't be 100% in favor of leaving. I'm not sure what percentage I'd put on that. It'd depend on divisional alignment and conference revenues. It'd have to be much more North/South oriented

Say it were:


I think that's fairly even in terms of strength. It upholds the worthless Tobacco Road rivalries and keeps the UNC/UVA rivalry going. I tried to match up the strongest from each division with each other but it's really not THAT easy to do. It'd be a compelling enough home schedule most years and if the money was comparable to the other major conferences I'd be ok with something like this.

But if the money isn't comparable OR if FSU is stuck facing 2+ of Pitt, Cuse, BC each year then F that.

(04-08-2012 12:22 AM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2012 11:18 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]If it were UL and ND would you feel the same?

What's not to like about UL, except maybe their academics? Everything else is great.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think UL or UC are crap schools. I just pretty sure they don't carry a ton of weight nationally and wouldn't really strengthen the ACC. They'd keep the status quo which obviously isn't working.

If ND were added I wouldn't be 100% in favor of leaving. I'm not sure what percentage I'd put on that. It'd depend on divisional alignment and conference revenues. It'd have to be much more North/South oriented

Say it were:

Code:

Florida State        Notre Dame
Miami                Louisville
Clemson              Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech         Pittsburgh
Wake Forest          Boston College
North Carolina       Virginia
NC State             Maryland
Duke                 Syracuse

I think that's fairly even in terms of strength. It upholds the worthless Tobacco Road rivalries and keeps the UNC/UVA rivalry going. I tried to match up the strongest from each division with each other but it's really not THAT easy to do. It'd be a compelling enough home schedule most years and if the money was comparable to the other major conferences I'd be ok with something like this.

But if the money isn't comparable OR if FSU is stuck facing 2+ of Pitt, Cuse, BC each year then F that.

I think in the next decade, in the right league, Louisville will be the "next" VT/Oregon/WVU in football and will exceed all three in overall athletics.

If it were ND and UL (which is unlikely due to the Cardinals academics) I believe the pods would be:

FSU-Miami-Clemson-GT
UNC-Va-Duke-MD
NC St-VT-Wake-UL
SU-BC-ND-Pitt

FSU's schedule would be Miami, Clemson, GT (annually) and then something like every two years UNC/Va/Wake/UL/SU/BC followed by two years of Duke/MD/VT/NC St/ND/Pitt

Cheers,
Neil

Gentlemen, you're all clearly misguided. Here is my new proposed ACC super conference.

This is an all sports superconference with OOC games strictly prohibited.


UNC Division
THE UNC Chapel Hill
UNC Asheville
UNC Wilmington
UNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro
UNC Pembroke

Footoval Division
NC State
Wake Forest
East Carolina
Appalachian State
Gardner-Webb
Lenoir-Rhyne

Dick Vitale PTPer Division
Duke
Western Carolina
Campbell
Elon
Davidson
High Point

Padding Stats Division
NC Central
NC A&T
Livingstone
Winston-Salem State
Mars Hill
Lees-McRae

Super Duper Stat Padding Division
Brevard
Belmont Abbey
Catawba
Queens
Wingate
Fayetteville State

The benefits are obvious. UNC and Duke fans will no longer hide their heads in shame thanks to the charity scheduling additions of competition not yet on their level. A guaranteed winning season every year! No longer will UNC and Duke fans actually have to do the whole pesky travel non-sense to far away inaccessible areas like ... Atlanta ... or DC. Now every game is a mere NCDOT Rail hop away! 1-800-BY-TRAIN! It's even on our Interstates! We'll have our own bowl games... I hear Asheville is nice in January ... and that their #1 best selling product is in fact the hookah. If Asheville doesn't work for you ... wellllll we can always have a big bowl game in Carolina Beach. That's close enough to Myrtle Beach for easy golf and putt-putt access! We just won't tell people Myrtle Beach isn't actually in NC. Plus we have the USS Yorktown which we can tow across the state line and play basketball games on aircraft carriers EVERY YEAR. Suck on that San Diego!

In summary gentlemen ... we will capture 100% of three major media markets ... 100% of the 20th or so best football recruiting state ... and 100% of the 15th or so best basketball recruiting state ... and 100% of the 15th or so best baseball recruiting state. How can we be stopped? It simply is not conceivable.

I call this unbeatable superpower................. THE North Carolina Conference.

You know you want to give me some rep points for creating the most awesome conference imaginable. So why don't you go ahead and do that while I see if Roy Williams wants to cuddle tonight.

Congrats FakeSwofford. I think that was the quickest I've ever added someone to my ignore list.

Cheers,
Neil

All very interesting points. However, back to the original question....

The 444 committee was formed ~2 years prior to the Pitt/SU announcement. I believe it will remain active, if not very busy, for some time. I believe the ACC will continue its emphasis on academics and add another president and faculty rep.

With that in mind I would appoint Syracuse Chancellor Cantor. Her intimate knowledge of the B1G academic consortium would be extremely valuable in the evaluation of candidates. Assuming they don't reorganize the entire committee, that would leave a faculty rep from Pitt. I have no knowledge of the Pitt faculty.

(04-08-2012 08:13 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]All very interesting points. However, back to the original question....

The 444 committee was formed ~2 years prior to the Pitt/SU announcement. I believe it will remain active, if not very busy, for some time. I believe the ACC will continue its emphasis on academics and add another president and faculty rep.

With that in mind I would appoint Syracuse Chancellor Cantor. Her intimate knowledge of the B1G academic consortium would be extremely valuable in the evaluation of candidates. Assuming they don't reorganize the entire committee, that would leave a faculty rep from Pitt. I have no knowledge of the Pitt faculty.

If the focus for the two new members is going to be an academic consortium then a prestigious research faculty member from Pitt would be an excellent choice.

Cheers,
Neil

Pretty much if ND isn't involved, it isn't worth it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

For #16, I'm not really overly attracted to any of the options. Rutgers maybe?

(04-08-2012 12:39 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much if ND isn't involved, it isn't worth it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

For #16, I'm not really overly attracted to any of the options. Rutgers maybe?

The advantages I see Rutgers having over the Cardinals are location, recruiting, and academics. But since the Scarlet Knights haven't yet managed to use those advantages to come anywhere near achieving what Louisville has achieved, I don't see it happening for them. Of all the realistic ACC expansion choices (assuming academics is not an issue), I think Rutgers is only ahead of Temple.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-08-2012 08:13 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]All very interesting points. However, back to the original question....

The 444 committee was formed ~2 years prior to the Pitt/SU announcement. I believe it will remain active, if not very busy, for some time. I believe the ACC will continue its emphasis on academics and add another president and faculty rep.

With that in mind I would appoint Syracuse Chancellor Cantor. Her intimate knowledge of the B1G academic consortium would be extremely valuable in the evaluation of candidates. Assuming they don't reorganize the entire committee, that would leave a faculty rep from Pitt. I have no knowledge of the Pitt faculty.

Wolfman, if I understand correctly, you're not asking which teams to add... you're asking who should be added to the ACC expansion committee (from Pitt & Syracuse), right?

It might be helpful to the rest of us if you tell us who is already on the 4-4-4 committee from each school? Which 4 schools provide the 4 ADs, for instance?

Thanks Mark! Actually there are 2 questions. The existing committee (see names/link below) is made up of 4 faculty reps, 4 presidents and 4 athletic directors. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse they need 2 more members. Would you add a faculty rep, president, AD or some other category? It is the presidents that ultimately vote so maybe they go unbalanced with 4 presidents, 5 AD and 5 faculty reps??

The second question is who, specifically would you add? I would not assume the existing assignments would remain. NC State could change from faculty rep to AD, etc. So everyone at Pitt and SU are potential candidates.

Who they choose can offer some insight as to the ACC's intentions. For example the could choose members that are pro Uconn to offset BC's objections. If they choose someone with Notre Dame ties it could mean they are pressing hard for ND.

The link also has links to member bios.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...8304.story

Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo.
Clemson president James Barker.
Duke athletic director Kevin White.
Florida State athletic director Randy Spetman.
Georgia Tech faculty rep Sue Ann Bidstrup Allen, professor and chair for strategic initiatives, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
Maryland faculty rep Nicholas Hadley, physics professor.*
Miami president Donna Shalala.
North Carolina athletic director Dick Baddour.
North Carolina State faculty rep Sam Pardue, professor and chair of Department of Poultry Science.
Virginia faculty rep Carolyn Callahan, professor Curry School of Education.
Virginia Tech president Charles Steger.
Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch.

(04-08-2012 02:29 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Mark! Actually there are 2 questions. The existing committee (see names/link below) is made up of 4 faculty reps, 4 presidents and 4 athletic directors. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse they need 2 more members. Would you add a faculty rep, president, AD or some other category? It is the presidents that ultimately vote so maybe they go unbalanced with 4 presidents, 5 AD and 5 faculty reps??

The second question is who, specifically would you add? I would not assume the existing assignments would remain. NC State could change from faculty rep to AD, etc. So everyone at Pitt and SU are potential candidates.

Who they choose can offer some insight as to the ACC's intentions. For example the could choose members that are pro Uconn to offset BC's objections. If they choose someone with Notre Dame ties it could mean they are pressing hard for ND.

The link also has links to member bios.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...8304.story

Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo.
Clemson president James Barker.
Duke athletic director Kevin White.
Florida State athletic director Randy Spetman.
Georgia Tech faculty rep Sue Ann Bidstrup Allen, professor and chair for strategic initiatives, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
Maryland faculty rep Nicholas Hadley, physics professor.*
Miami president Donna Shalala.
North Carolina athletic director Dick Baddour.
North Carolina State faculty rep Sam Pardue, professor and chair of Department of Poultry Science.
Virginia faculty rep Carolyn Callahan, professor Curry School of Education.
Virginia Tech president Charles Steger.
Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch.

Wow, I didn't know who was on this committee... let me say that I feel very good about their selections of Pittsburgh and Syracuse... but I do not feel good about this group.

I must admit up front that I don't know much about the presidents or the faculty, so I'll avoid comment there. However, of the folks I do know a little about:

* BC's AD Gene DeFilippo has presided over a steady decline since he was hired

* Miami's prez Donna Shalala seems to be implicated in the whole Miami/Nevin Shapiro scandal

* UNC's AD Dick Baddour has already been shown the door for UNC's recent NCAA violations.

As for "NC State could change from faculty rep to AD" - Debbie Yow may be a good person, but one could argue that she left Maryland in a worse mess, long-term, than when she arrived (which wasn't good either, I understand). She'll have to show me something at NC State, which just hasn't happened yet. (I assume you're a Wolfpack fan - how do you feel about the job Yow is doing?)