"The ACC has taken two teams from the Big East. An SEC team could be next.
"I'd say the ACC will try and recruit somebody from the SEC, maybe Florida, Kentucky or South Carolina," Arkansas athletics director Frank Broyles said Tuesday. "I wouldn't be surprised at all if the ACC went after one of our schools."
College sports experts say the ACC's addition of Miami and Virginia Tech this week is the beginning, not the end, of a shakeup in conference memberships that could go nationwide.
And if the SEC wants to avoid getting raided, it might look to change its rules. Miami and Virginia Tech had to pay $1 million apiece to leave the Big East, but there is no such provision in the SEC, and it's doubtful such a meager buyout would stop anybody anyway.
"There's nothing like that in our bylaws," said Mark Womack, executive associate commissioner of the SEC. "Currently an institution could be invited or could resign at any of our annual meetings."
That probably will change.
"I think it may be something that our presidents and athletic directors will discuss just based on this latest movement," Womack said.
Said Broyles: "I feel strongly that every league will start making preparations for what to do if a team left. I would think in a conference like the SEC, there would be a cost of about $10 million to $15 million on [a buyout]. I mean, that's the value of it."
One of the schools Broyles mentioned as potential targets, South Carolina, said it hasn't received any overtures.
"I've not been contacted," athletics director Mike McGee told The State newspaper. "That is so highly speculative, I wouldn't do anything other than to say we could not be happier in the SEC."
The ACC needs a 12th team to qualify for a football championship game under NCAA rules, and it isn't the only league looking for another team. The Big East needs two more football teams to have the eight required for it to remain a football conference.
Broyles said the strong level of football and basketball played in the SEC makes its members attractive targets. But the money the SEC generates might help it hold onto its members. The SEC distributed $101 million in revenue to its members in May.
Whatever movement takes place, Louisville clearly wants to be a part of it. The Cardinals have made no secret about their desire to improve on their situation within Conference USA and would be interested in joining either the Big East or the ACC.
"At this point, it is all speculation," Louisville athletics director Tom Jurich said in a statement provided to the AJC. "If any opportunity does exist to better the position of our university or improve the experiences of our student-athletes, we want to be in position to explore those options. . . . I have made it very clear [to Conference USA commissioner] Britton [Banowsky] that we will be very aggressive and very ambitious about our future."
Louisville probably is the most ready to move. The Cardinals spent $32 million on varsity sports last year, more than any other non-BCS school. They are annually one of the best football teams in their league and play in a relatively new football stadium. Also, Jurich two years ago hired former Kentucky and NBA basketball coach Rick Pitino, who made the Cardinals No. 3 nationally in basketball attendance last year, behind only Syracuse and Kentucky. Louisville would have to pay C-USA $500,000 to leave.
Conceivably, Louisville would be just as viable an addition to the ACC as to the Big East. However, its recent problems with academic performance and gender equity may be looked upon unfavorably by current ACC members.
The ACC, Big East and Big Ten all reportedly would like to lure Notre Dame football into their leagues. But it will be difficult to lure the Irish away from its football independence as long as NBC continues to write multi-million-dollar checks for broadcast rights of its games.
Wherever the Big East and ACC find new members, those moves will create vacancies, which could lead to more moves. The resulting domino effect could flow from conference to conference and from coast to coast.
"I'm not sure anybody knows what will happen," Womack said. "It's just a matter of individual institutions deciding what's best for them. When we expanded, I remember people saying it would completely change the landscape, and that hasn't happened."
Regardless of which teams join the Big East, that apparently won't have any immediate effect on the league's status as a BCS participant. There is no rule in the current contract, which expires after the January 2005 bowls, regarding the makeup of a member conference."
-post from 2003
10 years ago, some people thought that the ACC was going to raid the SEC. The SEC looks unstoppable right now, but it's important to keep things in perspective. Also, it's interesting to see what they said about U of L.
The difference is the SEC had just hired Mike Slive and didn't know what they had. We had then, and still have Swofford who is tied to the hip to Chapel Hill and then just as the past two expansions has crippled the ACC with basketball additions.
The expansion in 2003 was botched because the ACC administration was trying to keep the conference together. Swofford panicked when Tranghese approached him about a merger or swap of programs between the conferences to put the basketball first programs in one conference and the ones that correctly knew football was steering the bus together. He thought he was going to get screwed, thus the botched expansion in 2003.
I actually totally disagree. You get Miami and Va Tech(both of whom were kick ass programs at that point). Boston College was the one that is questionable, but at that point, in the BCS era, BC was 53-32. At that point, there weren't that many other good options. You say West Virginia. They were in that same period 47-37. To call Miami and VT basketball additions- that's a joke.
Miami- had been to tourney 4/6 years prior to joining ACC in hoops. but, in fb they were 73-14 in the period. Can't call that a hoops add.
VT- had not been to tourney since 1996 prior to joining ACC. defniitely not a hoops add.
BC- they had been to tourney 4/5 years prior to joining ACC. In fb 53-32. They were added more I think for the ability to have a ACC title game.
to call the 2003-04 expansion basketball related is a total joke. This time, it's much more questionable, it does feel like it's primarily hoops related.
(09-30-2012 10:07 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually totally disagree. You get Miami and Va Tech(both of whom were kick ass programs at that point). Boston College was the one that is questionable, but at that point, in the BCS era, BC was 53-32. At that point, there weren't that many other good options. You say West Virginia. They were in that same period 47-37. To call Miami and VT basketball additions- that's a joke.
Miami- had been to tourney 4/6 years prior to joining ACC in hoops. but, in fb they were 73-14 in the period. Can't call that a hoops add.
VT- had not been to tourney since 1996 prior to joining ACC. defniitely not a hoops add.
BC- they had been to tourney 4/5 years prior to joining ACC. In fb 53-32. They were added more I think for the ability to have a ACC title game.
to call the 2003-04 expansion basketball related is a total joke. This time, it's much more questionable, it does feel like it's primarily hoops related.
You forget, we didn't "want" VT. VT was forced upon us by the Virginia state government.
At the time we wanted Syracuse. Granted, at the time it looked a lot better for football than it does now, but even then it was a basketball add to counter Miami. BC was than, just as they were when Syracuse went drama queen and rejected us, #12. The big difference between the 2003 expansion and the 2011 expansion is the fact that in 2003 we actually added a football program.
The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
(09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
(09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
(09-30-2012 11:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
WVU, USM, and Louisville. Would have added basketball and much better football.
(10-01-2012 12:24 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 11:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
WVU, USM, and Louisville. Would have added basketball and much better football.
In 2003? That's absurd and you know it. Miami and VT light years better than WVU and Louisville, and So Miss was solid, but nothing screems atlantic more than Mississippi.
2011 expansion, you have an arguement.
(10-01-2012 12:54 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2012 12:24 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 11:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
WVU, USM, and Louisville. Would have added basketball and much better football.
In 2003? That's absurd and you know it. Miami and VT light years better than WVU and Louisville, and So Miss was solid, but nothing screems atlantic more than Mississippi.
2011 expansion, you have an arguement.
I'll give you Miami.
VT was originally not an option. It was forced upon the ACC by the VA Legislature.
Make a case for VT over USM and Louisville.
how about 3 sugar bowls and a orange bowl? also a title game appearance vs FSU. 2003 only season not in BCS top 25 entering the ACC. They were just as good in the Big East as Miami the years entering the ACC..
Louisville and USM much more of a gamble, plus neither fit geographically.... Both were non-AQ schools.
I know I'm late to the party, but I'll add:
"This thread isn't going to end well."
Actually, it sounds like a thread that belongs over at "Conference Realignment"...
(10-01-2012 09:02 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]I know I'm late to the party, but I'll add:
"This thread isn't going to end well."
Actually, it sounds like a thread that belongs over at "Conference Realignment"...
It was a copy of a post from 2003 that was originally posted in this thread.
(10-01-2012 12:24 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 11:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
WVU, USM, and Louisville. Would have added basketball and much better football.
WVU was solid, but Miami JUST won a NC and had 3 back-to-back-to-back almost undefeated seasons. USM's stadium held 33,000 people. I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that they were/are a serious program. Honestly, they aren't even BIG EAST material. Yes, I Know they went to a bunch of bowls from circa '99 to present, but they have a really, really weak conference schedule. And U of L has been good, but there wasn't (and still isn't) any proof that they can stay good. They could have very easily (and might still) turn into Miami without the location or academics.
Also, keep in mind that BC has had some success in the ACC and was even ranked #1 for a week or two in the '06 season. I would be amazed if USM has ever cracked the top 5. In short, going by highest rankings achieved since '00, Miami > WVU, VT > UL, BC > USM, or Miami/VT/BC > WVU, USM, UL, but I think WVU and UL have been better than BC over that time on the whole.
**academics aside, I wouldn't mind seeing WVU in the ACC though**
(10-01-2012 12:33 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2012 12:24 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 11:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:47 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 10:36 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC would have interest in an SEC school? Ya don't say. There's nothing in that article to suggest those SEC schools had any interest in the ACC.
In 2003 the SEC had LSU heading towards a national title and Alabama, Florida and Tennessee who had all won titles in the 90's. The SEC is on a roll right now but they have ALWAYS been a good football conference. I do not believe the ACC was ever in any real position to poach an SEC school. UF and South Carolina would've never bolted and Kentucky wouldn't have brought any football cache.
That's right.
Even when the ACC made more per school than the SEC FSU, Clemson, or GT would have gladly joined the SEC.
This was, is, and always will be a conference that cares more about basketball than football.
Who would you have added?
WVU, USM, and Louisville. Would have added basketball and much better football.
WVU was solid, but Miami JUST won a NC and had 3 back-to-back-to-back almost undefeated seasons. USM's stadium held 33,000 people. I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that they were/are a serious program. Honestly, they aren't even BIG EAST material. Yes, I Know they went to a bunch of bowls from circa '99 to present, but they have a really, really weak conference schedule. And U of L has been good, but there wasn't (and still isn't) any proof that they can stay good. They could have very easily (and might still) turn into Miami without the location or academics.
Also, keep in mind that BC has had some success in the ACC and was even ranked #1 for a week or two in the '06 season. I would be amazed if USM has ever cracked the top 5. In short, going by highest rankings achieved since '00, Miami > WVU, VT > UL, BC > USM, or Miami/VT/BC > WVU, USM, UL, but I think WVU and UL have been better than BC over that time on the whole.
You can't go based on what happened since the adds. Who knew that Miami back in 2003/04 would fall in a lot of ways totally apart. VT had done very well in the 10 years prior to entering the ACC. BC was a gamble, but still a safer bet than adding So Miss or Louisville at that point. WV I don't think ever had much of a shot.
In the year 2003, Miami was a "no-brainer", having just played for a national championship in football.
Here are the records of 3 candidate teams from 1998 - 2002; given that the ACC wanted to add 2 more teams from the Big East, which of these 3 would YOU have passed on, based solely on recent performance AT THE TIME?
Code:
Year TeamA TeamB TeamC
2002 10-4 9-4 9-4
2001 8-4 8-4 3-8
2000 11-1 7-5 7-5
1999 11-1 8-4 4-7
1998 9-3 4-7 8-4
Tot 49-13 36-24 31-26
The team you don't want is "C", right? I mean, not only do they have the worst overall record over the last 5 seasons, but they are also the most erratic. Team A is very solid, and Team B appears to be improving.
Who are those teams? A=Va Tech, B=Boston College, C=W Virginia
I don't particularly blame the ACC for any of the schools they've added in the last decade. As I've already said, the ACC was not and is not able to poach from other BCS conferences not named the Big East.
I just blame it for everything else.
(10-01-2012 06:58 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]I don't particularly blame the ACC for any of the schools they've added in the last decade. As I've already said, the ACC was not and is not able to poach from other BCS conferences not named the Big East.
I just blame it for everything else.
Out of curiosity, when you say the ACC, do you mean the individual schools, or the conference as a whole, and what do you blame it for (under-preforming, under-funding, bad TV negotiating, or something else)? and what would you have done differently?
Keep in mind the ACC was, top to bottom, the best conference in 2003. Bar none.
yep- just looked at Sagarin and the ACC was #1 in 2003...
and here's the teams that entered-
#7 Miami
#36 Va Tech
#37 Boston College
when the ACC was making the decision- here's the teams that CatDaddy was talking about:
#42 West Virginia
#51 Southern Miss
#63 Louisville