(04-28-2010 11:28 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Staying in a league because the competition is weaker isn't exactly a strong selling point for said league. Anyway VT is happier than anyone with how the ACC expansion took place. That's where they wanted to be since the '50s.

Yes - virtually everyone will always choose the stability of a stronger league than dominating a weaker league. The point is that university presidents care just as much (if not more) about minimizing risk in down years than shooting the moon in great years. It doesn't matter if the MWC gets a BCS AQ bid - if Utah gets a Pac-10 invite, it will choose the stability of that league. If anything, this expansion process shows how important it is to be in a stable league because your world can change rapidly if there's any weakness (even if a league has Texas and Oklahoma).

With the number and popularity of the Gators and Noles in Florida, no one conference would ever "lock up" the State of Florida. The ACC tried and failed.

(04-28-2010 12:37 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Other than USC, can anyone name me a private school that has great success in FB in the last 5-7 years?

TCU

BTW, nice post.

(04-28-2010 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 10:15 AM)nuftw Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:37 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Some of the kids who would be backups at Miami could opt to be stars at FIU and/or FAU. Depth has a lot to do with a teams overall success, and all this could make Miami a less deep team. Other than USC, can anyone name me a private school that has great success in FB in the last 5-7 years? Miami's last NC in might be the last they see. There is definitely a power shift in college athletics away from smaller private schools and towards larger public universities. Miami's move to the ACC might have opened the door and hastened their own decline.

I actually look at their move in the opposite way. Instead of staying in the Big East which had revenue problems even then, Miami left for a conference where they would be guaranteed an equal split even if they fell off the map competitively. Basically, they traded their athletic strength then for long term security. I don't think they regret that decision at all.

Exactly. Administrators and athletics directors crave guaranteed money that isn't dependent upon wins and losses, which is what the ACC provides. If Miami had experienced its downturn under the Big East revenue distribution model, its revenue would've dropped precipitously. Also, Miami president Donna Shalala (who was in President Clinton's cabinet) wanted to position Miami academically and the ACC is right alongside the Big Ten as the top academic conference. I think that people are really underplaying the academic attractiveness of the ACC - it's a big reason why I think it's a whole lot safer than people give it credit for. These university presidents all want to associate themselves with Duke, UNC and UVA regardless of sports.

In this economy, especially after the lack of support of ACC Championship games to date, do you expect the ACC's revenue to increase? I don't, and agree with the others that their move, while profitable in the short run, may prove disasterous in the long term.