+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: ACCbbs (/forum-381.html)
+---- Forum: ACC Conference Talk (/forum-351.html)
+---- Thread: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? (/thread-961701.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137
Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - random asian guy - 12-15-2022 12:50 PM
With UCLA move to the Big Ten finally approved, other conferences can now make a move. Is the ACC going to pass this opportunity?
SBJ’s interview with Phillips a few days ago:
On potential further expansion by the ACC: “We're always looking. We're always assessing our institutions and assessing if there are moves that would benefit the ACC long term. And I think what we all understand bigger does not necessarily mean better.”
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/12/09
A model answer from Phillips but it’s interesting that SBJ didn’t seem to ask the expansion question to the other commissioners.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - ken d - 12-15-2022 02:48 PM
(12-15-2022 12:50 PM)random asian guy Wrote: With UCLA move to the Big Ten finally approved, other conferences can now make a move. Is the ACC going to pass this opportunity?
SBJ’s interview with Phillips a few days ago:
On potential further expansion by the ACC: “We're always looking. We're always assessing our institutions and assessing if there are moves that would benefit the ACC long term. And I think what we all understand bigger does not necessarily mean better.”
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/12/09
A model answer from Phillips but it’s interesting that SBJ didn’t seem to ask the expansion question to the other commissioners.
You mean the other commissioners besides the Big Ten and SEC?
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - nole - 12-15-2022 05:29 PM
It's an option.....just not a good one.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - AeroWolf - 12-15-2022 06:02 PM
Expand to whom. Outside of ND, there are no compelling targets available to the ACC.
No compelling rivalry targets that could add real interest and value. (WVU adds interest against Pitt and VT but liitle value.)
No teams that add value from being in places we want to engage for recruiting or population viewing metrics. (Tulane, SMU, Temple, etc.).
We would be better off forming partnerships with the SEC and PAC to create an annual ACC vs SEC and ACC vs PAC football challenges.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - SouthernConfBoy - 12-15-2022 10:08 PM
The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - XLance - 12-16-2022 06:09 AM
Unless ESPN is going to bankroll adding teams from the west coast, it's a money losing proposition.
1)The SEC adding Kansas is a solid move. It gives the SEC the basketball school to pair with Kentucky and finally gives the SEC some legitimacy in that sport. Kansas gets Oklahoma and Missouri and continues their growing relationship with Texas.
2)The balance of "power" in the NE is now pretty evenly split, but over time the B1G's influence will continue to grow and eventually even Rutgers and Maryland will step out of the shadows. The ACC needs a catalyst. Although this is a risky move, West Virginia could fill that role and tip the hearts of NE college fans in favor of the ACC. Every conference needs a "bad guy" and Miami hasn't lived up to that role.
3)That leaves the SEC at 17 and the ACC at 15. The only logical move is the shift. Take one SEC school and move them east. The candidates are Kentucky, Tennessee and South Carolina. The prize for the ACC would be Tennessee. Kentucky doesn't make sense after the SEC has added Kansas. The problem with Tennessee is that they are just not a cultural fit, since they developed on the wrong side of the mountains. That leaves South Carolina, which is an original ACC member.
Summary) These adds and shift make both conferences stronger and more marketable. Kansas upgrades SEC basketball. The SEC offers regional rivals to Kansas to make them relevant.
West Virginia provides the "missing link" to tie the northern ACC schools to the South and gives the NE ACC schools a common "regional" rival and resident bad guy. South Carolina helps retake the coastal mid-Atlantic for the ACC and helps Georgia Tech rediscover an identity.
It's a win for ESPN, a win for the SEC and a win for the ACC. More natural rivalries, more passion and more money........
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - GoWulfPak - 12-16-2022 08:16 AM
I'm all for WVU as they care about football, have a HUGE fan base and have ties with northern ACC schools.
That said...the money is in Texas. ACCN money that is....black gold...Texas Tea.
Baylor and TCU would do wonders for the ACC.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - Hokie Mark - 12-16-2022 08:41 AM
(12-16-2022 08:16 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: I'm all for WVU as they care about football, have a HUGE fan base and have ties with northern ACC schools.
That said...the money is in Texas. ACCN money that is....black gold...Texas Tea.
Baylor and TCU would do wonders for the ACC.
The ACC will eventually be forced to add perhaps as many as 6 teams. WVU could be one (for rivalry reasons), but the rest need to be West of the Mississippi River, IMO.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - CardinalJim - 12-16-2022 08:51 AM
Anything that happens with The ACC inviting Big 12 schools needs to happen before the GOR extension is signed by present Big 12 members. I like the idea of adding Big 12 programs but favor adding PAC schools more.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - Garrettabc - 12-16-2022 12:38 PM
I think 16 is a good, round number, but when you get that many I think everybody should play 9 conference games or if that can’t be achieved then a 4 team playoff system, might even work both things into it.
If 16 is the magical number, I’d like to see 2 out of these 3 in this order: WVU, UConn, Cinci.
If the powers that be figure that doubling down in Florida is the way, then get both UCF and USF. Both are best together and you lock every other conference out of the state (other than SEC) for the foreseeable future. Plus if FSU and/or UM leave the ACC you still have a strong presence in Florida.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - random asian guy - 12-16-2022 12:38 PM
(12-15-2022 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:(12-15-2022 12:50 PM)random asian guy Wrote: With UCLA move to the Big Ten finally approved, other conferences can now make a move. Is the ACC going to pass this opportunity?
SBJ’s interview with Phillips a few days ago:
On potential further expansion by the ACC: “We're always looking. We're always assessing our institutions and assessing if there are moves that would benefit the ACC long term. And I think what we all understand bigger does not necessarily mean better.”
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/12/09
A model answer from Phillips but it’s interesting that SBJ didn’t seem to ask the expansion question to the other commissioners.
You mean the other commissioners besides the Big Ten and SEC?
With respect to the expansion:
SEC: No
BIG: Done for now
ACC: Always looking
PAC: Wait and see
B12: Open for business
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35204361/alabama-ad-see-sec-expanding-term?platform=amp
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - JRsec - 12-16-2022 03:46 PM
(12-16-2022 12:38 PM)random asian guy Wrote:(12-15-2022 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:(12-15-2022 12:50 PM)random asian guy Wrote: With UCLA move to the Big Ten finally approved, other conferences can now make a move. Is the ACC going to pass this opportunity?
SBJ’s interview with Phillips a few days ago:
On potential further expansion by the ACC: “We're always looking. We're always assessing our institutions and assessing if there are moves that would benefit the ACC long term. And I think what we all understand bigger does not necessarily mean better.”
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/12/09
A model answer from Phillips but it’s interesting that SBJ didn’t seem to ask the expansion question to the other commissioners.
You mean the other commissioners besides the Big Ten and SEC?
With respect to the expansion:
SEC: No
BIG: Done for now
ACC: Always looking
PAC: Wait and see
B12: Open for business
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35204361/alabama-ad-see-sec-expanding-term?platform=amp
The SEC is always a no, until it isn't. And AD's don't know diddly about it. The Commissioner and Presidents handle that, and the AD's are informed down the chain of command. The Big 10 has Warren saying he expects more and some schools saying they are done for now. Translation, we'll add more just not sure when.
And that's the way it will stay while schools apply and start conversations with the SEC and Big 10. It is a scramble everywhere else.
But here's the dirty little secret. The last to get raided will be the first to go defunct. Why? Because all of the best available options for a reload will be gone. Strategically the Big 12 is in the better position because their stability is born out of low interest in their remaining schools for other conference's expansion. I could see some of them being of interest to the ACC and PAC but they won't be picked apart by the SEC and Big 10 anymore. Well, maybe Kansas.
So, what can the ACC do out of the box to secure itself? With regard to football revenue not a lot. But then how many true contenders in the ACC are impacted by that? Two, maybe three?
The idea of adding PAC schools has this going for it:
Most of them would find an increase in the move.
Most of them share an academic vision with the ACC.
It would give the ACCN one of the largest markets, perhaps the largest market.
It could make sense if you took enough of them.
Think bigger.
California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, Washington, Washington State
That leaves Arizona and Arizona State for the Big 12. It destroys the Big 10's abilities to grow further, which undermines their ability to raid the ACC. It limits the Big 12's ability to stay even or pull ahead of you.
Back in the heart of ACC country you would look like this:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
You would let Florida State and Clemson head to the SEC without GOR punishment but with appropriate exit fees. Now the monetary expectations of the remaining schools would be essentially the same. Everyone's revenue would increase from the time zone slots added for telecast, which would please ESPN, and from the ACCN carriage fees.
You would partner with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl and the Orange and Peach bowls and with the Big 10 in the Rose.
The SEC could add Kansas to go with Clemson and Florida State possibly look at South Florida as a lucky #4.
This sews up Florida for ESPN, closes the Big 10 out of the Southeast, clips their wings in the West, and the Big 12 picks up the 2 Arizona schools, San Diego State, Colorado State, Boise State, Tulane, and Fresno State. They now stand with a much more cohesive 16. The Big 10 gets to enjoy frequent flyer miles to L.A. and vice versa.
An 8 team wing of the ACC out west really cuts out a lot of travel normally associated with mergers at distance. I think 55 million per school is an easy starting point for such a venture. Then if you want to secure yourselves you start a Basketball only wing of the ACC and incorporate the Big East and any other mid major with a solid track record and sound academics.
This solves ESPN's time slot dilemma, grows their Winter inventory, pools schools which love their Olympic sports (though you may have to start some water polo on the East Coast) and it compliments everything the SEC is not particularly strong in or oriented towards.
I think it may be worth thinking about.
Now, why might the PAC consider doing this? The academic fit and mix is roughly the same as their current one. And, if they considered an unequal revenue sharing with the Big 10, they would be likely looking in the 50-million-dollar range. By joining the ACC, they aren't flying that much more, and there would be much more dignity being in a conference where everyone is paid equally in the 50-million-dollar range than being in one where they were the red headed stepchildren financially. Finally, it keeps the most of their schools together, and clustered geographically in the Northwest. So, their own divisional play would be within a more concise region.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - XLance - 12-17-2022 12:25 PM
Before any other conference explores the PAC, what the B1G does further will dictate future PAC movement.
If the B1G goes beyond 16, I would look for them to explore Arizona and Arizona State as opposed to any schools up the coast.
Good weather for late season games and a huge market in a concentrated physical area.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - Wahoowa84 - 12-17-2022 03:17 PM
(12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - XLance - 12-17-2022 03:39 PM
(12-17-2022 03:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:(12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
Dream scenario?
I don't want any part of the west coast........it would be the kiss of death for the ACC.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - BePcr07 - 12-17-2022 03:51 PM
(12-17-2022 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-17-2022 03:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:(12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
Dream scenario?
I don't want any part of the west coast........it would be the kiss of death for the ACC.
Agreed. If the ACC felt compelled to expand, I’d start with Cincinnati and West Virginia. Any further additions would need to be on an as-needed basis should the conference lose members to the B1G or SEC. People should make no mistake in understanding the ACC is the clear #3 in the power conferences.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - SouthernConfBoy - 12-17-2022 04:43 PM
(12-17-2022 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-17-2022 03:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:(12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
Dream scenario?
I don't want any part of the west coast........it would be the kiss of death for the ACC.
Are you talking about the conference's world view and internal politics?
To me it's not the kiss of death as long as you can outvote Cal, Colorado, Stanford, and Oregon. Essentially you could be getting the ACC back as a division - something akin to the Pac 6-8, old 7 school ACC, and the old iteration of the Big East.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - SouthernConfBoy - 12-17-2022 04:45 PM
I like good OOC football games, and I like OOC football games that are not dictated by the distance an NC State booster can haul his $50,000 pig cooker and the vastness of the away schools parking lots.
One football game a year west of Denver will harm no one in the ACC and if you make the least advance planning you can catch Yosemite, SF, the Cascades, Rainier, Grand Canyon, Zion, and the Rockies on the same trip. Your only harrowing experience will be having to allow a pot head to fill your vehicle with gasoline in Oregon.
It's like visits to Yankee land - Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and their surroundings are nice visits every 5 years or so, but you don;t want to be going there twice every year. Then it becomes a pain in the ass and not special.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - random asian guy - 12-17-2022 05:04 PM
(12-17-2022 03:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:(12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
I suspect the internal politics is a bigger obstacle. Certain ACC schools may not want the west coast expansion. This is where the leadership matters and I really hope Phillips have vision and leadership to deliver.
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC? - SouthernConfBoy - 12-17-2022 05:13 PM
I know some attend football only for football. Some have to drag along spouses and some drag along families. Then are the practicalities - can you get direct flights or do you have to connect in Charlotte, Atlanta, or Baltimore? Can you actually park at the stadium or must you park far away and take another type of conveyance? Can you stand the weather all season if Fall is nice, what is late summer like, what is the humidity? What are the side attractions do you have a beach, a real city, nightlife, or is it glorified subdivision or cow pasture? How friendly is the fan base - will they help you change your tire and be nice to your kid wearing the other teams colors? Can you get mugged on the way into the game? If you have a heart attack in the stands will someone on the sidelines jump up and save your life?
Even without on site parking, GT and Atlanta are worth a trip every year. Miami, Wake Forest, and UNC are worth a trip every other year - Miami because of the climate and the city, Wake Forest because it is quaint and the people friendly, and UNC because I know all the secret spots in which to park a car. As far as traveling goes the once every 4 years crows is Pitt, NC State, Clemson, Florida State, and Duke for variations of all the above reasons. Getting to Clemson and FSU from RDU is not always a snap. Duke always has parking, but Duke is just Duke. Raleigh is the worlds largest suburban development and boring. Pitt is a niche, but once you learn it, it's a fun town.
VT, Louisville, BC, UVa, Syracuse, and ND present various challenges and the time of year greatly matters.
Part of expansion is not just money or culture, it's about a place you like to visit every couple of years or so. Being a nice place to visit is what keeps UCF, USF, and Tulane in any conversation.