I'm not thrilled about a 12th game because it contradicts what schools presidents and AD's say about a playoff system making the season longer and it would interrupt with their classes.

If that is the case then why wouldn't adding a 12th game do the same?

I think it's BS and if you're going to play a 12 game season you can also have a playoff.

It's funny how adding an extra game for money purposes can make a lot of folks blind to what is really going on here.

wvucrazed Wrote:And what about the ACC's desperate drive to have a championship game? Was Miami behind that too?

A conference championship game was only way it was going to work financially, according to them. Although, the numbers still don't quite add up the way Swofford and the ACC powers sold it at first. But do you really think the old guard (Duke, UNC, etc.) really wanted to have a 12 team conference?

wvucrazed Wrote:Oh, okay. The ACC only wanted Miami. They wanted a 10 team league. It was MIAMI that forced the issue, and demanded BC and Syracuse.

And what about the ACC's desperate drive to have a championship game? Was Miami behind that too?

LOL.

By the time you go over 10, you have to go to 12 or you lose money.

Quote:I think it's BS and if you're going to play a 12 game season you can also have a playoff.

Not only that, but now the argument exists that 'Well, we'd have to shorten the regular season for a playoff at the end, and that would cut revenue for all but 8 or 16 schools.'

Quote:By the time you go over 10, you have to go to 12 or you lose money.

The Big 10 (which has 11 members) made 10.6 million per school in the 2002-03 year. In comparison, the SEC made 10.2 per school in the same year, the Big 12 even less. 11 is far from an unworkable number.

nflsucks Wrote:

Quote:By the time you go over 10, you have to go to 12 or you lose money.

The Big 10 (which has 11 members) made 10.6 million per school in the 2002-03 year. In comparison, the SEC made 10.2 per school in the same year, the Big 12 even less. 11 is far from an unworkable number.

Which is less than the Big 10 would make with 12 and a championship game and you damn well know it.

With 12 and a championship the ACC pulls about 14-15 per school.

Quote:With 12 and a championship the ACC pulls about 14-15 per school.

Which would be the equivalent of being about 40-60 million dollars more lucrative than the $EC. Not going to happen.

I find it interesting that you chose not to respond to my post refuting the ND/Louisville/Basketball split solution, the # of conference games, and the ACC's guilt (or lack thereof according to you).

Quote:If the ACC had it's way, it would be a 10 team league now, and the BE (at worst) picks up L'ville and/or Notre Dame and the status quo is maintained throughout.

-- If the BE could add ND at a snap of a finger we would have certinly done so as a way to make the conference more attractive, thus keeping Miami around...the BE could have done...and did far worse...then the scenario you described

-- For some reason it is very hard for ACC fans (even reasonable ones like GT Swagger) to "walk a mile in our shoes" and understand why we are bitter

Quote:When in actuality, the black helicopters dropped off their cargo YEARS ago, and the sports "hatred" that exists now is merely an offshoot of those earlier non-sports problems.

I wouldn't expect a GT/ACC fan to get it......

-- Capital Pirate....what happened between ECU and the other Carolina schools in the past? Why all the hard feelings?


Jackson

bump

There are real students in ACC schools, student athletes in ACC schools; however, when it comes to football and basketball for the most part, you can't say that these schools are doing their job. The ACC is a joke, just look at the grad rates for African American football and basketball players at many of the ACC schools.

Carolina and State have always tried to keep us down. Its gone on since the 1960's when we were trying to gain status as a university they tried to prevent that. They also tried to prevent us from getting the Medical School. As recently as last year they(UNC) tried to prevent us from getting money for our much needed Cardiovascular Center. We asked for 60 million and it was almost denied but we had some backers in the senate to push for it. Then UNC also asked for almost double that and they got it no problem. They try to prevent us from adding programs. We started an engineering program which was relatively small with the potential for added growth. Well NCSU threw a fit about it and tried to prevent us from getting the money to start the program.

Athletically, they dont want to play us. It took legislative action for UNC to start playing us again and they just made their first trip to Greenville two years ago. State and Duke played us in Greenville for the first time in 99'. Wake has been pretty good to us. We are actually trying to get them on our schedule in basketball. There isnt any love lost when we play them and thats why we hate them.

GT_swagger, there are so many inaccuracies in your post, I don't know where to begin.

Quote:1) Correct. ACC didn't want to bring it to 12... they wanted to keep it at 10. Bringing in BC was a "have to" at that point or they'd lose money.

Not true. UNC and Duke proposed the Miami-only alternative, which Rutgers and other BE football schools also supported. They were voted down 7-2.

Quote:2) If VPI had not been invited then it would have been UM, BC, Cuse, per Miami's insistance... without all the "who's going?" and bickering. This would leave the BE a stronger football conference as well.

Basically true. Miami believes in the 12 team league concept of the SEC and B12 as does FSU. Miami made it clear they would not leave the BE to simply be ACC #10, they wanted the league to go to 12. Miami did indeed want BC and Cuse to be the other two, but when that didn't occur, she still went. But when she went, she had Swofford's assurances that they would eventually get to 12.

But it wasn't just Miami who supported a 12-team league and the additions of BC and the Cuse. The consultants did as well. And not all of their reasons were publically given as Miami was Prize 1, but the ACC was also after Prize 1A and hoped to bag it and another Prize within 5-7 years of the Miami-SU-Cuse expansion as well.

Or are you forgetting that Debbie Yow (AD at Maryland) and the President of Clemson both hinted that there would be 'further expansion down the road' once the ACC had stabilized at 12?

Doesn't seem like a league that really and truly only wanted to expand to 10, does it?

Quote:3) They are the ones that turned ACC 10 into ACC 12, yes.

It was never, ever, ever going to be 10 from an ACC perspective. As a matter of fact, Miami almost made it simply 10 - VT only - when they didn't immediately accept the ACC offer but let them stew (long enough to get Swofford's assurance they would go to 12)

Quote:4) 10 teams fills out b/c otherwise every single week SOMEBODY has to have a bye or OOC opponent. It also allows for the round-robin in basketball to continue

For football without a championship game, 9 is the perfect number. And basketball was never, ever, ever a consideration with this expansion. One of the reasons why UNC and Duke were so upset. They saw the league as becoming football-centric rather than basketball-centric.

Quote:5) You have this concept that you are privvy to controlling a school's decisions. Miami was in the right place, with the right academic status, with the right athetlic status, at the right time. Unfortunately the prenup was a b****.

Miami was the ACC's assurance against a spiralling downward FSU program with an aging Bowden (with the possibility of a potential full collapse when Bowden retires). Just as the BE needed Miami for BCS viability, so too did the ACC. They just needed it less than the BE.

Miami also was a way to expand the ACC market in both the northeast and Florida (the SEC mostly owning Florida with the Gators). Of course, with Meyer now at Florida, look for the SEC to once again own Florida even with both FSU and Miami. And with BC in the 'other' division and not guaranteed to play Miami every year, less northeastern exposure for the Hurricanes as well.

For all their advantages and smarts, the ACC sometimes does stupid things to spite themselves.

Quote:6) The ACC didn't create the dominoe changes. Correlation does not mean causation. The BE could have easily split off into a BB only league, picked up L'ville and Notre Dame... and been fine. And if you really want to talk I-A alignments seriously, then let's tackle the issue of playoffs, elimination of the BCS, and why there seems I-AA within I-A, so to speak.

Agreed. The hybrid nature of the BE allowed it to remain weak enough to be raided. However, it wasn't Miami begging the ACC to get in, the ACC pursued Miami, and pursued them very aggressively. So while both are at fault, the aggressor is always assigned a higher percentage of the blame.

Quote:7) If the ACC had it's way, it would be a 10 team league now, and the BE (at worst) picks up L'ville and/or Notre Dame and the status quo is maintained throughout.

If Clemson or Georgia Tech have their way, the ACC will eventually be a 16-team league. Both presidents have endorsed the G5 concept - 5 super-conferences with 16 teams each.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

Quote:5) You have this concept that you are privvy to controlling a school's decisions. Miami was in the right place, with the right academic status, with the right athetlic status, at the right time. Unfortunately the prenup was a b****.

Miami was the ACC's assurance against a spiralling downward FSU program with an aging Bowden (with the possibility of a potential full collapse when Bowden retires). Just as the BE needed Miami for BCS viability, so too did the ACC. They just needed it less than the BE.

Miami also was a way to expand the ACC market in both the northeast and Florida (the SEC mostly owning Florida with the Gators). Of course, with Meyer now at Florida, look for the SEC to once again own Florida even with both FSU and Miami. And with BC in the 'other' division and not guaranteed to play Miami every year, less northeastern exposure for the Hurricanes as well.

For all their advantages and smarts, the ACC sometimes does stupid things to spite themselves.

Quote:6) The ACC didn't create the dominoe changes. Correlation does not mean causation. The BE could have easily split off into a BB only league, picked up L'ville and Notre Dame... and been fine. And if you really want to talk I-A alignments seriously, then let's tackle the issue of playoffs, elimination of the BCS, and why there seems I-AA within I-A, so to speak.

Agreed. The hybrid nature of the BE allowed it to remain weak enough to be raided. However, it wasn't Miami begging the ACC to get in, the ACC pursued Miami, and pursued them very aggressively. So while both are at fault, the aggressor is always assigned a higher percentage of the blame.

Quote:7) If the ACC had it's way, it would be a 10 team league now, and the BE (at worst) picks up L'ville and/or Notre Dame and the status quo is maintained throughout.

If Clemson or Georgia Tech have their way, the ACC will eventually be a 16-team league. Both presidents have endorsed the G5 concept - 5 super-conferences with 16 teams each.

Cheers,
Neil

Quote:Not true.  UNC and Duke proposed the Miami-only alternative, which Rutgers and other BE football schools also supported.  They were voted down 7-2.

That was deep into the discussion after Miami made it clear they leave only for 12... in which case they voted no (essentially no expansion period votes)

Quote:Or are you forgetting that Debbie Yow (AD at Maryland) and the President of Clemson both hinted that there would be 'further expansion down the road' once the ACC had stabilized at 12?

I'll touch on that at the very bottom of this post

Quote:Doesn't seem like a league that really and truly only wanted to expand to 10, does it?

It did originally. For years and years they tried to get Miami as #10. It was only when Miami made it clear the terms at which they'd move that the 12 became the push. There was also a subpush from UVA-UMD-CU-GT-FSU .. who were tired of being NC-railed in much of the league decisions. They would, at this point, get the bonus of eliminating the NC domination... unless ECU were pulled in, which was NOT going to happen b/c the in state schools wanted more state $$ and the rest of the conference wanted no NC dominance.

Quote:For football without a championship game, 9 is the perfect number.  And basketball was never, ever, ever a consideration with this expansion.  One of the reasons why UNC and Duke were so upset.  They saw the league as becoming football-centric rather than basketball-centric.

I'd say 8 or 10 is the perfect number unless you want to keep throwing up bye weeks and really bizarre timed OOC games. Basketball was a consideration in the push all the way up to Miami saying 12, because 10 would allow for the round robin to continue. To say they never thought about basketball is silly.

Quote:Miami was the ACC's assurance against a spiralling downward FSU program with an aging Bowden (with the possibility of a potential full collapse when Bowden retires).  Just as the BE needed Miami for BCS viability, so too did the ACC.  They just needed it less than the BE.

That's just silly. The league did fine prior to FSU joining (UMD national title, Clemson national title, Georgia Tech national title, the Welsh era at Virginia, the Bobby Ross era at Tech ... the league held it's own, and was #1 in the Sagarin the year before expansion, winning the ESPN bowl cup. That's as 9 teams now. I'd say they were doing just fine prior and what is becoming post Bowden. The ACC would have kept its BCS bid even if Florida State plummeted off the map.

Quote:Miami also was a way to expand the ACC market in both the northeast and Florida  (the SEC mostly owning Florida with the Gators).  Of course, with Meyer now at Florida, look for the SEC to once again own Florida even with both FSU and Miami.  And with BC in the 'other' division and not guaranteed to play Miami every year, less northeastern exposure for the Hurricanes as well.

Miami's market was only part of it... and arguably not the biggest one. Miami presented a way to make the league stronger in most sports while maintaining academic standards. You don't become a big time league without racking up titles, and this was a way to bolster that.

Quote:And with BC in the 'other' division and not guaranteed to play Miami every year, less northeastern exposure for the Hurricanes as well.

Uhhh... Boston is a really really really poor college market. It's a market, but not a really strong one for college. BC got drug in b/c Miami insisted.

Quote:If Clemson or Georgia Tech have their way, the ACC will eventually be a 16-team league.  Both presidents have endorsed the G5 concept - 5 super-conferences with 16 teams each.

Which is a really nice oncept, but only a concept. There are so many things standing in the way of that currently it's not even funny. Lower level conferences... tradition... rivalry... playoff systems... bowls... lack of big presense in areas of the country... and other such things.

Quote:I'd say 8 or 10 is the perfect number unless you want to keep throwing up bye weeks and really bizarre timed OOC games.

Tell me, please, if 9 conference games is so much more desirable, why does the SEC, PAC 10, Big 12, and Big 10 only play 8? They don't seem to mind those 'bizarre' off weeks.

Maybe because it's not.

Quote:

Quote:Not true.  UNC and Duke proposed the Miami-only alternative, which Rutgers and other BE football schools also supported.  They were voted down 7-2.

That was deep into the discussion after Miami made it clear they leave only for 12... in which case they voted no (essentially no expansion period votes)

There was no discussion with Miami without it being a 12-team league. And this discussion of going to 12 has been since at least 1998. The only difference between the late 90s and 2003 was that the tobacco road crowd was unified back then, but then NC State began having success in football and broke ranks. Wake followed, leaving UNC and Duke on the outside looking in.

Prior to 1998, the ACC (meaning Tobacco Road and Virginia) had little interest in Miami since they perceived it to be a 'rogue' school that would do anything to win in football.

Quote:

Quote:Or are you forgetting that Debbie Yow (AD at Maryland) and the President of Clemson both hinted that there would be 'further expansion down the road' once the ACC had stabilized at 12?

I'll touch on that at the very bottom of this post

Actually, you didn't touch upon it. The ACC was moving toward first a 12 team conference (let the dust settle for 5-7 years) and then toward a 14 team conference (with Prize 1A and hopefully another prize as well).

Quote:

Quote:Doesn't seem like a league that really and truly only wanted to expand to 10, does it?

It did originally. For years and years they tried to get Miami as #10. It was only when Miami made it clear the terms at which they'd move that the 12 became the push. There was also a subpush from UVA-UMD-CU-GT-FSU .. who were tired of being NC-railed in much of the league decisions. They would, at this point, get the bonus of eliminating the NC domination... unless ECU were pulled in, which was NOT going to happen b/c the in state schools wanted more state $$ and the rest of the conference wanted no NC dominance.

I think we are basically saying the same thing, the difference here is that you seem to believe the ACC had 'a choice' in the matter when it came to Miami and 12 and I don't.

Which is why since 1998 many articles have been written about ACC expansion, and everyone single one of them I've read involved a 3 team expansion with SU, BC, and VT being the candidates for the other two slots. Miami-only simply wasn't going to happen.

Now 10 could have happened. The ACC could simply have taken VT alone and stopped. But that didn't happen. Why? Because Miami was the prize. And after taking Miami and VT and stopping, they could have stopped at 11 like the Big Ten (even with Swofford's assurances, once Miami committed to the ACC what was she going to do if they didn't go to 12), but they didn't did they? Why? Because even with Miami the $$$ wasn't there without getting the football championship game.

So, with all that information, expansion to 10 with Miami wasn't viable since Miami wouldn't come and the $$$ wouldn't be there even if she did. It just took several years to cause a break in Tobacco Road.

(I'll save space and not cut and paste the 'bye week' thing and your notion that an 8 or 10 team conference is better a 9-team configuration. That concept is so flawed it isn't even worth debating.)

Quote:

Quote:Miami was the ACC's assurance against a spiralling downward FSU program with an aging Bowden (with the possibility of a potential full collapse when Bowden retires).  Just as the BE needed Miami for BCS viability, so too did the ACC.  They just needed it less than the BE.

That's just silly. The league did fine prior to FSU joining (UMD national title, Clemson national title, Georgia Tech national title, the Welsh era at Virginia, the Bobby Ross era at Tech ... the league held it's own, and was #1 in the Sagarin the year before expansion, winning the ESPN bowl cup. That's as 9 teams now. I'd say they were doing just fine prior and what is becoming post Bowden. The ACC would have kept its BCS bid even if Florida State plummeted off the map.

The ACC was the conference closest to having its champion not average an overall #12 ranking or above for 4 consecutive years, which could have triggered a BCS review per BCS guidelines. Now realistically, I doubt they would remove the ACC's auto bid but why take the chance?

As for Clemson, Virginia, and Maryland - please!

Clemson, the decade preceeding the summer of 2003, had only two seasons in which they accumulated 8+ wins; Maryland just the two 2001 and 2002 under Fridge (prior to that they were a less than .500 club, almost Rutgers-like in performance); and Virginia was a 7-8 win type of club but no national type team (compare Virginia's record with SU's during the late 80s and 90s and they are basically even, but SU was perceived to be just below elite and the Cavaliers simply above average).

Georgia Tech was the only other ACC club that was considered to be playing at a high level in college football.

Quote:

Quote:And with BC in the 'other' division and not guaranteed to play Miami every year, less northeastern exposure for the Hurricanes as well.

Uhhh... Boston is a really really really poor college market. It's a market, but not a really strong one for college. BC got drug in b/c Miami insisted.

Like many you confuse 'interest' with 'accessibility'. Everyone knows that there isn't a lot of interest in Boston for the Eagles. However, there is interest and a very small amount of interest in Boston can result in more viewers than 20-25% of some states.

More importantly, having BC allows ACC football to open up its brand in the Northeast. The ACC owns Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. That's it. The rest of its footprint is in SEC territory and they don't come close to the SEC in terms of popularity in college football in those states. Georgia is about 75-25 Georgia over GT, South Carolina is about 67-33 Gamecocks over Tigers, and Florida is Gator territory.

So in order to increase the value of their TV contracts, the ACC needed to expand to the only area where they can possibly attract more viewers - the northeast. This is why VT was not the choice of the consultants. The head consultant when contacted to redo the numbers with VT-only said he rated it a 2 on a scale of 10. He didn't need to do Miami, BC, and VT since that combo and its profitability was already reported in the original consultant's work and deemed not to be as beneficial as the numbers a Miami, BC, and SU expansion would bring. To truly establish a northeastern footprint and try to capture those markets one needs the northeastern corridor of DC (ACC has), Baltimore (ACC has), Philly, New York and Boston.

The idea of BC and SU in terms of market wasn't that they would automatically bring a huge ratings bonanza from Boston and New York, but rather get ACC regional football games shown in these markets (Boston and New York) that tend to show Big Ten games otherwise. In other words, get more exposure for more ACC teams to help them build more of a national reputation beyond FSU and now Miami (which have national reputations).

Of course, there was another reason why BC and SU were coveted, not just by Miami, but some within the ACC as well - but that story has yet to be told.

Cheers,
Neil

Quote:Actually, you didn't touch upon it.  The ACC was moving toward first a 12 team conference (let the dust settle for 5-7 years) and then toward a 14 team conference (with Prize 1A and hopefully another prize as well). 

What I was going to say but forgot was that the only way, currently, they can expand and increase money is to bring in Notre Dame. The words "fat chance" come to mind.

Quote:Clemson, the decade preceeding the summer of 2003, had only two seasons in which they accumulated 8, wins; Maryland just the two 2001 and 2002 under Fridge (prior to that they were a less than .500 club, almost Rutgers-like in performance); and Virginia was a 7-8 win type of club but no national type team (compare Virginia's record with SU's during the late 80s and 90s and they are basically even, but SU was perceived to be just below elite and the Cavaliers simply above average).

Georgia Tech was the only other ACC club that was considered to be playing at a high level in college football.

You're talking about during the FSU years. You can't have it both ways. You can't justify post-FSU conditions by using the status of the league when FSU was in stockpile-fire-reload mode. Not fair. The only team that could manage to GET enough talent the way FSU was stockpiling was Georgia Tech because O'Leary recruited nationally. I'm using STRICTLY the time immediately before FSU's join. At which time, Clemson, Maryland, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia were all quality clubs. In the 10-15 yrs before FSU joined, the ACC claimed three football championships.

Quote:More importantly, having BC allows ACC football to open up its brand in the Northeast.  The ACC owns Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.  That's it.  The rest of its footprint is in SEC territory and they don't come close to the SEC in terms of popularity in college football in those states.  Georgia is about 75-25 Georgia over GT, South Carolina is about 67-33 Gamecocks over Tigers, and Florida is Gator territory.

UGAg is about 70-30 over Tech, but that will change when the NCAA gets balls and hits them with the death penalty (god knows they've done much worse than SMU did over the last 15 years). Clemson, however, I very much disagree with. I have attended USC and can tell you first hand Clemson has the better calling in this state. There are even student based Clemson fan clubs. You can't drive out of Columbia without passing a shitload of Tiger paw crap on cars. It's at least 60-40 Clemson. FSU-Miami combined pull more than the party city you may call U of Florida -- so that's a poor argument for FL-the-SEC-state.

Ideally they would have taken BC-Cuse for market, reputation, and such --- but alas people play politics.

GT Swagger, Why would GaTech need to recruit nationally with all the great players located in Georgia & Florida. Do you think the ACC would have won those National Championships if the BCS system was in place?

Quote:What I was going to say but forgot was that the only way, currently, they can expand and increase money is to bring in Notre Dame. The words "fat chance" come to mind.

That's true now, you bet your sweet bippy - thank you very much President Moesser! But 5-7 years down the road dependent upon -

1) how BC was treated,

2) an ACC that had shedded its 'southern image' for an East Coast version of the Pac-10 (the league ND has the most affinity with right now but is not an option for them to join),

3) with BC, SU, MD, and Virginia to give them exposure in Boston, New York, Baltimore, and DC, and

4) dependent upon who was #14 - possibly exposure in Philly as well

ND was definitely prize 1A. And that's been the thinking of some in the ACC since ND rejected the Big Ten in 1999. But after expansion blew up in there face and simply because ND started to talk with them about partial affiliation (like their deal with the BE) they thought they had them by the cajones the way they had Miami. Except they learned ND isn't Miami.

Quote:Clemson, however, I very much disagree with. I have attended USC and can tell you first hand Clemson has the better calling in this state. There are even student based Clemson fan clubs. You can't drive out of Columbia without passing a shitload of Tiger paw crap on cars. It's at least 60-40 Clemson.

Can't find the poll now that I remember reading when they asked South Carolinians to name their favorite college football team in the state (I distinctly remember it saying South Carolinians preferred the Gamecocks to the Tigers by a 2 to 1 margin - something to do with the Tigers being perceived as more of a 'Charlotte, NC' team than a true South Carolina team) but I did find the SI poll where they simply asked them to state their favorite college team (not limited to the state or particularly to football) and the results were -

South Carolina - 20 %
Clemson - 12 %
UNC - 5 %
Duke - 4 %

(the latter two might be reversed, but I'm too lazy to go back and re-do the search to find which way it was).

But even here, you can see a big discrepancy between USC and Clemson in the Gamecocks favor even with the question being broader and not restricted to college football, but simply favorite college team.

Quote:FSU-Miami combined pull more than the party city you may call U of Florida -- so that's a poor argument for FL-the-SEC-state.

Florida just had a record 58,000+ show up for their Spring practice game. That's more than Miami usually averages for their regular season games.

Florida is the favorite college football team of the state. And it's not close. Together FSU and Miami can challenge, but even together it's still Florida ahead.

Now, on a national level, both FSU and Miami may be more popular. But we aren't talking national, we are talking about the state of Florida - and Florida is Gator country.

Cheers,
Neil