At the end of the day, always follow the money, which supports all programs! We always have.

(06-09-2014 07:25 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

First and foremost, the ACC is an athletics conference. It is secondarily an academic conference.

Didn't South Carolina withdraw from the ACC due to a dispute over a self-imposed conference academic minima?

Why is setting up a self-imposed conference academic minima different from what Wilkie is suggesting?

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC has more private schools than any other conference combined. That was done to preserve the academic focus of the conference. Imposing an athletics minimum goes against what the ACC holds most dear.

At the time the ACC only had two private universities, Wake and Duke. So what you said isn't accurate. And you're only kidding yourself if you think "academics" are what the ACC holds "most dear". That's ridiculous.

Ummmm...why are you even commenting on the ACC again? You clearly don't know anything about the league...

Wake - private
Duke - private
Miami - private
Syracuse - private
Boston College - private
Notre Dame (all sports + 5 games football) - private
Pitt - private/public hybrid

Not to mention there are schools like Ga Tech who even though they are public, it's a technical school with high academic standards.

During the time South Carolina was in the ACC - you know, the time period that was being discussed - Wake and Duke were the only ACC privates.

So I don't particularly give a damn about current privates that weren't part of the ACC at the time.

(06-09-2014 07:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

That's to you. Clearly other programs in the league think otherwise. To say Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC is ridiculous.

Let me rephrase this to something in-line with what I've already said:
Wake adds no rivalries or traditions of value to the ACC. They are the dregs of the ACC.

(06-09-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Yes, and if the ACC didn't cave in to one of theirs...L'Ville wouldn't have been invited.

Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Oh, you know the "facts"? Give me the breakdown.

Dude. We're talking about now. Syracuse fan and Louisville fan were talking about kicking out Wake NOW. If you did that NOW, you would have to replace Wake with a less academic institution. Something the ACC cares very deeply about. That's what we were discussing. Syracuse Fan brought up the SC example to show precedent over a school leaving the conference because of imposed criteria. He was basically saying a team like Wake may want to do the same if there are certain athletic requirements Wake has to meet.

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

That's to you. Clearly other programs in the league think otherwise. To say Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC is ridiculous.

Let me rephrase this to something in-line with what I've already said:
Wake adds no rivalries or traditions of value to the ACC. They are the dregs of the ACC.

Well it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter in this case.

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

(06-09-2014 08:38 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Would a UConn-for-Wake Forest swap financially benefit the conference? Probably. While football is about the same in terms of quality, UConn's basketball programs are much better than Wake's. UConn is better positioned to compete athletically (large student body, large athletic budget, etc). Furthermore, UConn would add a new market to the conference where Wake really only adds duplicate shares of a market that the ACC already dominates (NC).

That said, the argument for replacing Wake with UConn could just as easily be applied to most other schools in the conference (e.g. Notre Dame-for-Louisville, Florida-for-Louisville, etc). Wake is a founding member of the conference and the only way they'd be out of the ACC is if they either a) voluntarily left or b) completely quit on trying to run a competitive athletic department. Until one of those two things happens, Wake is an ACC school.

Also Wilkie, the ACC didn't even want us until Maryland left. The Big 12 also passed us over. What does that tell you about our desirability?

Substantially more desirable than Wake.

Also, the reason why Wake is being compared to UConn, or UC, or Temple, is because those are "available" schools, Wake is arguably the ACC's worst, and all 3 are, at worst, equivalent to Wake.

Comparing a "middle" soon-to-be ACC program to a top SEC team that is "unavailable" or a top independent that has long made their "unavailability" known aren't really comparable situations.

(06-09-2014 08:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Oh, you know the "facts"? Give me the breakdown.

Here's the breakdown: Marge spews 95% BS. Occasionally you say something I agree with. That's worth about 5% I think.

(06-09-2014 12:42 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Lets tone it down on these issues. The ACC invited our schools (UL/Pitt/Cuse) and really didn't have to. Any talk of trading Wake for UConn is just stupid especially considering the fact that Wake is a charter member of the conference.

The ACC also invited my school. And since the ACC would be an AAC-type of joke conference by now if they hadn't: I'm'a keep on keepin' on.

Nobody actually thinks "trades" can/will happen. But Wake is the least valuable property in the ACC. Even the most ardent non-Wake Wake-lovers are unable to dispute that. And the Wake fan in here - Buckminster - readily admits it.

As I said, it ain't personal, just bidness. And Wake is bad bidness. They're just in the wrong league.

(06-09-2014 12:24 PM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  Wake has a historically bad football tradition. Anyone who tries to argue to the contrary (and I'm not saying anyone is) would be lying to themselves. So, kudos to those of you who cracked that nut.

However, since the conference's division era, Wake's administration has made a concerted effort to improve football. Deacon tower, other upgrades to Groves Stadium and Bridger Field House are examples of those efforts. There is currently a move to improve weight room and locker room facilities. Wake has also begun paying its football coaches more in line with ACC standards. Grobe was making over a million dollars when he resigned. So, the effort is being made. Wake just has a lot of ground to make up, but I think Grobe proved you can win at Wake, and he did raise the expectations. The fan base is no longer content to just field a competitive team. They expect to consistently be in bowl games. So, while criticism of Wake's overall football product going back to the start of the league are well deserved, if you look at what they have accomplished since they started making a more concerted effort, it certainly is not the embarrassment everyone portrays. 2006-2008 were very good years, and in 2011 had we beat Clemson at Clemson on November 12th (a 31-28 loss), we would have been in the championship game again. Wake still has one more conference championship in the division era than several of the larger and more well thought of schools.

Although Wake's basketball team has fallen on hard times recently, it has historically put together very good teams and has had some very good players (Tim Duncan, Rodney Rogers, Chris Paul, Josh Howard, Jeff Teague). So, criticism of the current state of the basketball program is deserved, but I think every school has had bad coaching hires, and Wake just got rid of probably the worst coach in the history of the program. It will take them a little while to get back on track. But Wake's basketball program as a whole has been solid. Any criticism of the program as a whole is due to a very short look-back.

Nevertheless, Wake Forest will never deliver the state of North Carolina, and the other North Carolina schools would easily deliver the Winston-Salem market for television purposes if Wake were gone. Those of you making those points are 100% accurate.

So, if all college athletics means now is maximizing revenue, then Wake Forest should be asked to leave the conference immediately.

Don't disagree with any of the facts or most of your sentiment. Have only two questions/remarks:

1. Who is criticizing Wake basketball? It's good, but not great.
2. Wake had a nice little football run there for a few years. I just don't foresee something like that happening again for a long while, no matter what type of "commitment" Wake puts into football. Grobe criticized Wake for its lack of commitment in the last year or two.

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

(06-09-2014 08:14 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Oh, you know the "facts"? Give me the breakdown.

Here's the breakdown: Marge spews 95% BS. Occasionally you say something I agree with. That's worth about 5% I think.

Ha, so you can't actually refute the statement that a majority of those cheating students were football and basketball players? Wonder why...

(06-09-2014 08:12 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

That's to you. Clearly other programs in the league think otherwise. To say Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC is ridiculous.

Let me rephrase this to something in-line with what I've already said:
Wake adds no rivalries or traditions of value to the ACC. They are the dregs of the ACC.

Well it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter in this case.

Unfortunately for you, neither does yours.

(06-09-2014 08:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Dude. We're talking about now. Syracuse fan and Louisville fan were talking about kicking out Wake NOW. If you did that NOW, you would have to replace Wake with a less academic institution. Something the ACC cares very deeply about. That's what we were discussing. Syracuse Fan brought up the SC example to show precedent over a school leaving the conference because of imposed criteria. He was basically saying a team like Wake may want to do the same if there are certain athletic requirements Wake has to meet.

(06-09-2014 08:33 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:12 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

That's to you. Clearly other programs in the league think otherwise. To say Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC is ridiculous.

Let me rephrase this to something in-line with what I've already said:
Wake adds no rivalries or traditions of value to the ACC. They are the dregs of the ACC.

Well it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter in this case.

Unfortunately for you, neither does yours.

Yeah but I'm right

(06-09-2014 08:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Dude. We're talking about now. Syracuse fan and Louisville fan were talking about kicking out Wake NOW. If you did that NOW, you would have to replace Wake with a less academic institution. Something the ACC cares very deeply about. That's what we were discussing. Syracuse Fan brought up the SC example to show precedent over a school leaving the conference because of imposed criteria. He was basically saying a team like Wake may want to do the same if there are certain athletic requirements Wake has to meet.

From most UofL fans point of view it is probably like the:...The views of Wilkie are his and his alone....

(06-09-2014 08:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:14 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Oh, you know the "facts"? Give me the breakdown.

Here's the breakdown: Marge spews 95% BS. Occasionally you say something I agree with. That's worth about 5% I think.

Ha, so you can't actually refute the statement that a majority of those cheating students were football and basketball players? Wonder why...

No point of trying. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

(06-09-2014 08:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:19 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

The ACC kicked down UL's door trying to invite them.

Umm no. ACC was set to invite UCONN until FSU and Clemson stepped in.

More schools than just those two wanted UL. UConn clearly never had the votes.

It was one or the other. Clemson and FSU were going to "set off the nukes" if UCONN came instead of L'Ville. The academics wanted UCONN..The football schools wanted L'ville. UCONN was always initially perceived to be ahead of L'ville. Well the ACC changed their line of thinking and voila.....the Cards get the invite.