(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Asking for a friend...also, what does the ACC look like?

The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

In '91 Syracuse was still AAU. It's possible that the Big 10 would have considered them with Penn State. They could have gone after Pitt and B.C. as well, especially if they were still trying to track down the Irish, but nobody back then thought in terms of moves in greater numbers than 2.

But I do think had F.S.U. gone to the SEC in '91 that Clemson's rise in status would have been impinged. More than any other ACC program Clemson needed a key rival in football to be able to measure themselves by.

(04-05-2018 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Asking for a friend...also, what does the ACC look like?

The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

In '91 Syracuse was still AAU. It's possible that the Big 10 would have considered them with Penn State. They could have gone after Pitt and B.C. as well, especially if they were still trying to track down the Irish, but nobody back then thought in terms of moves in greater numbers than 2.

But I do think had F.S.U. gone to the SEC in '91 that Clemson's rise in status would have been impinged. More than any other ACC program Clemson needed a key rival in football to be able to measure themselves by.

Clemson would have been just fine. They would have been the kingpin of ACC football, just as they had since the conference started.
What might have happened:
Mack Brown's Tar Heels (without Florida State to continuously trip over) would have become a permanent fixture in the top ten and would have been Clemson's #1 competition in the conference.

(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Asking for a friend...also, what does the ACC look like?

The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

BC wasn’t at the level of Pitt, Syracuse or Miami at the time but I still think if the ACC had gone to 12, they would have selected BC over VT. VT just wasn’t there yet in ‘91 in terms of a national brand.

(04-05-2018 04:45 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Asking for a friend...also, what does the ACC look like?

The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

BC wasn’t at the level of Pitt, Syracuse or Miami at the time but I still think if the ACC had gone to 12, they would have selected BC over VT. VT just wasn’t there yet in ‘91 in terms of a national brand.

VT and ECU were peers in 1991... the Big East football conference really boosted non-traditional programs. It was Miami and the 7 dwarfs back then but VT, BC, WV and even Rutgers were able to become a part of the big boy club...while being snubbed destroyed ECU’s momentum

I have to think that if the ACC lost out on Florida St in 1991 and admitted just one of: Miami, BC, Syracuse, or Pitt the Big East football league doesn't happen.

I think you get a total free for all with all of the independents trying to find a home. The ACC could add 0-4 schools.

I really think we end up with a Metro Football Conference in 1991. If South Carolina is still there then they would have 7 schools. All it would take is WVU or ECU signing on. Rutgers and Temple are optional.

I'm not sure if the Big Ten gets in on the game. I think that 12th spot was for Notre Dame or bust.

Another distinct possibility is a confederation, probably not a full conference, of northeastern independents featuring any of the following not bound to another conference: BC, Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Temple, Army, Navy, WVU.

(04-05-2018 04:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Asking for a friend...also, what does the ACC look like?

The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

In '91 Syracuse was still AAU. It's possible that the Big 10 would have considered them with Penn State. They could have gone after Pitt and B.C. as well, especially if they were still trying to track down the Irish, but nobody back then thought in terms of moves in greater numbers than 2.

But I do think had F.S.U. gone to the SEC in '91 that Clemson's rise in status would have been impinged. More than any other ACC program Clemson needed a key rival in football to be able to measure themselves by.

Clemson would have been just fine. They would have been the kingpin of ACC football, just as they had since the conference started.
What might have happened:
Mack Brown's Tar Heels (without Florida State to continuously trip over) would have become a permanent fixture in the top ten and would have been Clemson's #1 competition in the conference.

I think you missed my point here X. Florida State was at a whole other level of play than Clemson when they joined the ACC. F.S.U. elevated Clemson eventually. No F.S.U. and Clemson plods on as the football brand of the ACC but nothing more. UNC would never have elevated their game enough to take them to the next level.

(04-05-2018 11:46 AM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would think FSU would fall nicely under Georgia in the pecking order. Hey, there is always Vandy to bear up on, right?

You're cute, assuming you meant in football strength FSU would have probably still accomplished their two national championships and probably included another however they wouldn't have maintained their streak of top 4 finishes (due to the schedule being more difficult compared to the ACC). FSU probably would have still won the championship in both 1993 (curious to see how they would have played against Auburn that year; however their defense was otherworldly that season and Charlie Ward was a beast) and 1999, and I believe they would have won it all in 1996 as well (in expense of Florida's first Championship) because the rematch probably wouldn't have happened. Georgia would still sit with two championships; during this time frame. Luckily for the Dawgs they are in much better shape today than they probably ever were as a program.

I'm just going off what Bowden himself has talked about.

He's talked quite a bit about FSU and the SEC. Let's face it, he would know.

FSU would have still dominated in the 90s, but would have probably experienced a more substantial decline in the 2000s.

You can actually measure this by looking at the actual games played vs. the SEC. They had an edge on Spurrier's Gators teams who were routinely SEC Champs in the 90s.

Mark Richt brought Georgia to prominance with a win over the Noles in '02. The Tim Tebow teams beat the snot out of the Noles, but they still beat Alabama in the early Saban years. This decade, they've dominated the Gators, beat Ole Miss, beat Auburn in the Championship, but lost to NC Alabama.

They compete pretty well with the top of the SEC, they would fit right in

(04-05-2018 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:46 AM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would think FSU would fall nicely under Georgia in the pecking order. Hey, there is always Vandy to bear up on, right?

You're cute, assuming you meant in football strength FSU would have probably still accomplished their two national championships and probably included another however they wouldn't have maintained their streak of top 4 finishes (due to the schedule being more difficult compared to the ACC). FSU probably would have still won the championship in both 1993 (curious to see how they would have played against Auburn that year; however their defense was otherworldly that season and Charlie Ward was a beast) and 1999, and I believe they would have won it all in 1996 as well (in expense of Florida's first Championship) because the rematch probably wouldn't have happened. Georgia would still sit with two championships; during this time frame. Luckily for the Dawgs they are in much better shape today than they probably ever were as a program.

I'm just going off what Bowden himself has talked about.

He's talked quite a bit about FSU and the SEC. Let's face it, he would know.

Well he beat Saban lol

(04-05-2018 09:08 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:46 AM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would think FSU would fall nicely under Georgia in the pecking order. Hey, there is always Vandy to bear up on, right?

You're cute, assuming you meant in football strength FSU would have probably still accomplished their two national championships and probably included another however they wouldn't have maintained their streak of top 4 finishes (due to the schedule being more difficult compared to the ACC). FSU probably would have still won the championship in both 1993 (curious to see how they would have played against Auburn that year; however their defense was otherworldly that season and Charlie Ward was a beast) and 1999, and I believe they would have won it all in 1996 as well (in expense of Florida's first Championship) because the rematch probably wouldn't have happened. Georgia would still sit with two championships; during this time frame. Luckily for the Dawgs they are in much better shape today than they probably ever were as a program.

I'm just going off what Bowden himself has talked about.

He's talked quite a bit about FSU and the SEC. Let's face it, he would know.

Well he beat Saban lol

He did.

Saban's first year was 7-6 with one of those 6 being a loss to FSU.

Still, Bowden talked about FSU in the SEC and made a similar point to what I did.

(04-05-2018 09:08 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:46 AM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would think FSU would fall nicely under Georgia in the pecking order. Hey, there is always Vandy to bear up on, right?

You're cute, assuming you meant in football strength FSU would have probably still accomplished their two national championships and probably included another however they wouldn't have maintained their streak of top 4 finishes (due to the schedule being more difficult compared to the ACC). FSU probably would have still won the championship in both 1993 (curious to see how they would have played against Auburn that year; however their defense was otherworldly that season and Charlie Ward was a beast) and 1999, and I believe they would have won it all in 1996 as well (in expense of Florida's first Championship) because the rematch probably wouldn't have happened. Georgia would still sit with two championships; during this time frame. Luckily for the Dawgs they are in much better shape today than they probably ever were as a program.

I'm just going off what Bowden himself has talked about.

He's talked quite a bit about FSU and the SEC. Let's face it, he would know.

Well he beat Saban lol

(04-05-2018 09:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 09:08 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:46 AM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would think FSU would fall nicely under Georgia in the pecking order. Hey, there is always Vandy to bear up on, right?

You're cute, assuming you meant in football strength FSU would have probably still accomplished their two national championships and probably included another however they wouldn't have maintained their streak of top 4 finishes (due to the schedule being more difficult compared to the ACC). FSU probably would have still won the championship in both 1993 (curious to see how they would have played against Auburn that year; however their defense was otherworldly that season and Charlie Ward was a beast) and 1999, and I believe they would have won it all in 1996 as well (in expense of Florida's first Championship) because the rematch probably wouldn't have happened. Georgia would still sit with two championships; during this time frame. Luckily for the Dawgs they are in much better shape today than they probably ever were as a program.

I'm just going off what Bowden himself has talked about.

He's talked quite a bit about FSU and the SEC. Let's face it, he would know.

Well he beat Saban lol

He did.

Saban's first year was 7-6 with one of those 6 being a loss to FSU.

Still, Bowden talked about FSU in the SEC and made a similar point to what I did.

If Bowden was an Auburn guy over a Bama guy would you discredit him haha! Seriously though he had said a lot of things and honestly we will never truly know what would have happened if FSU joined the SEC.

I grew up a FSU fan in the day when Bowden was building a recruiting base that few would have. When I heard FSU would have the ability to join the SEC I felt they should have jumped at it. It may not have been the total number of wins they would have had, but it would not have been a double digit difference. I do believe Bowden picked the ACC because of the dominance he felt would have compared to the SEC, but was a shortsided vision.

Why things happened as they did is part of the historical record. The "what if" questions may have value in hindsight perspectives, but little else.

FSU is part of the ACC and shall remain so for a long time.
Perhaps being a bigger fish in a bit less manicured pond is quite proper.

(04-05-2018 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  The "other" choice of the ACC in '91 was Syracuse. The ACC would have pursued the Orange until they submitted to get to 9 and stop.

Then the question becomes "what happens to the Big East". Does Miami still go to the Big East?
To answer the original question re: FSU,
Sports, like women's soccer, that were added after joining the ACC wouldn't exist and perhaps the new medical school is placed somewhere else because the emphasis on academic growth wouldn't have had the same motivation.
FSU would not have developed it excellent all around sports program, but would have continued to be a football power.

Maybe the question is "does the Big East still form if Miami opts to apply to the ACC instead?" IMO, the only reason either the ACC or the BE were included in the original BCS was because they each had a nationally prominent tentpole school in FSU and Miami.

If the ACC added Miami and Syracuse to go to 10 members, that would have left the fledgling BE football conference with only six teams. Three of those would have still been attractive to somebody, but not likely either the Big Ten or SEC. Va Tech wasn't yet the Va Tech of today and WVU wouldn't have qualified on a number of counts for the B1G. Maybe Pitt gets a look by the Big ten as a companion to Penn State (since adding the Nittany Lions brought the Big Ten to an awkward 11 members).

I doubt the ACC would have been forward thinking enough to add Pitt and Va Tech to get to 12 - they would have had a hard enough time swallowing the idea of 10.

Those decisions by FSU and Miami were the lynchpin for much of the realignment moves that happened later.

In '91 Syracuse was still AAU. It's possible that the Big 10 would have considered them with Penn State. They could have gone after Pitt and B.C. as well, especially if they were still trying to track down the Irish, but nobody back then thought in terms of moves in greater numbers than 2.

But I do think had F.S.U. gone to the SEC in '91 that Clemson's rise in status would have been impinged. More than any other ACC program Clemson needed a key rival in football to be able to measure themselves by.

Clemson would have been just fine. They would have been the kingpin of ACC football, just as they had since the conference started.
What might have happened:
Mack Brown's Tar Heels (without Florida State to continuously trip over) would have become a permanent fixture in the top ten and would have been Clemson's #1 competition in the conference.

I think you missed my point here X. Florida State was at a whole other level of play than Clemson when they joined the ACC. F.S.U. elevated Clemson eventually. No F.S.U. and Clemson plods on as the football brand of the ACC but nothing more. UNC would never have elevated their game enough to take them to the next level.

Perhaps JR, but Clemson wasn't "chopped liver" in the 80's. In the ten years before FSU joined the ACC the Tigers averaged over 8 wins a year and had 5 ten or more win seasons
In the first 10 years of FSU's ACC membership the Tigers took a slight dip in performance averaging less than 7 wins per season and never reaching double digit wins in a season. The Tigers never got out of the middling performance mindset until Dabo became their head coach. I would argue that it was Dabo that elevated Clemson and not Florida State.
Tommy Bowden (with Rich Rod) came to Clemson after an undefeated season at Tulane, but in 10 seasons could never reach a 10 win season with the Tigers.

I believe that if FSU had turned down the invite to the ACC in 1990 (FSU accepted the invite on September 15, 1990 while Miami accepted the Big East invite a couple of weeks later) and accepted instead an SEC invite the 8-team ACC would have stayed pat as they were.

Gene Corrigan pushed for expansion and was truly only excited about adding FSU, even though Syracuse tied them in a straw vote 4-4. If FSU had slipped through their fingers, they'd have done nothing. And though I am an SU homer, the fact that we actually split even with FSU back then is an honor and a privilege but probably says more about ACC mindset, then it did about our finally getting back to some national prominence in football back in 1987.

It is hard to prove, but my own personal feelings are during the first decade in the SEC in this alternate timeline FSU would have won the SEC East five out of the ten years with Florida taking three and Tennessee taking the other two.

Thankfully, from an SU fan's perspective, FSU did agree and the ACC was gifted the single greatest expansion addition in the modern era.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-08-2018 01:56 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I believe that if FSU had turned down the invite to the ACC in 1990 (FSU accepted the invite on September 15, 1990 while Miami accepted the Big East invite a couple of weeks later) and accepted instead an SEC invite the 8-team ACC would have stayed pat as they were.

Gene Corrigan pushed for expansion and was truly only excited about adding FSU, even though Syracuse tied them in a straw vote 4-4. If FSU had slipped through their fingers, they'd have done nothing. And though I am an SU homer, the fact that we actually split even with FSU back then is an honor and a privilege but probably says more about ACC mindset, then it did about our finally getting back to some national prominence in football back in 1987.

It is hard to prove, but my own personal feelings are during the first decade in the SEC in this alternate timeline FSU would have won the SEC East five out of the ten years with Florida taking three and Tennessee taking the other two.

Thankfully, from an SU fan's perspective, FSU did agree and the ACC was gifted the single greatest expansion addition in the modern era.

Cheers,
Neil

Just spitballing, but if Florida St turned down the ACC, would we have seen an eventual “merger” between the Big East football schools and the ACC into a new ACC? The SEC would also have added South Carolina along with Florida St. Arkansas and Texas A&M would make it 14. The ACC drops Temple. The B1G picks up Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Maryland, and Rutgers for 16 and stays. The ACC adds Louisville for 14. SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma St for 16. ACC adds Cincinnati and Connecticut for 16. PAC makes a run for Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston for 16.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

SEC
West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas
North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina
South: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Florida St

ACC
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest
East: North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Virginia
West: Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville
North: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Connecticut

B1G
South: Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa
West: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St
East: Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

(04-08-2018 01:56 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I believe that if FSU had turned down the invite to the ACC in 1990 (FSU accepted the invite on September 15, 1990 while Miami accepted the Big East invite a couple of weeks later) and accepted instead an SEC invite the 8-team ACC would have stayed pat as they were.

Gene Corrigan pushed for expansion and was truly only excited about adding FSU, even though Syracuse tied them in a straw vote 4-4. If FSU had slipped through their fingers, they'd have done nothing. And though I am an SU homer, the fact that we actually split even with FSU back then is an honor and a privilege but probably says more about ACC mindset, then it did about our finally getting back to some national prominence in football back in 1987.

It is hard to prove, but my own personal feelings are during the first decade in the SEC in this alternate timeline FSU would have won the SEC East five out of the ten years with Florida taking three and Tennessee taking the other two.

Thankfully, from an SU fan's perspective, FSU did agree and the ACC was gifted the single greatest expansion addition in the modern era.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm inclined to think that if the ACC could not have Florida St the 4 schools that voted for them in the straw poll would have shifted their support to Miami. Spit 4-4 but feeling the pressure to make some move so they opt to bring in both.

This leaves the following football schools:

Big East: Pitt, BC
A-10: WVU, Rutgers, Temple
Metro: VT, S Car, Cincy, L'ville, Memphis, USM, Tulane

Somewhere in there there is a conference. Not sure which conference banner or which or all or included.

(04-08-2018 02:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm inclined to think that if the ACC could not have Florida St the 4 schools that voted for them in the straw poll would have shifted their support to Miami. Spit 4-4 but feeling the pressure to make some move so they opt to bring in both.

This leaves the following football schools:

Big East: Pitt, BC
A-10: WVU, Rutgers, Temple
Metro: VT, S Car, Cincy, L'ville, Memphis, USM, Tulane

Somewhere in there there is a conference. Not sure which conference banner or which or all or included.

It's all hypothetical, but I have to believe there was a reason why the straw vote of adding just one came down to FSU or SU. Realistically speaking, if they were thinking "football first" the original straw vote in our timeline would likely have been FSU or Miami. Which when one takes the time to think about, if football first was indeed the only criteria it should have been FSU and Miami. This tells me that they weren't making this strictly as a "football" add.

With FSU off the table in this hypothetical I think a straw vote that came down to Miami or SU would have resulted in a stalemate and no action just as an SU vote only would have resulted in no action. What I know of ACC history would seem to support this, but again, it is all theoretical, so you could be right.

Cheers,
Neil

Florida State to the ACC
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-09...conference

Miami to the Big East - here is your money article about what else was going on
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-10/s...conference

Article from SI
https://www.si.com/vault/1990/07/09/1222...conference