(05-20-2013 07:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:01 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I read it, and there is a difference between cultural and business resistance to making a change. The ACC opposed partial membership for business reasons, because Swofford and others running the show disliked the idea and the message it would send about ACC stability and viability. But there was nothing cultural about this opposition.

ACC cultural-identity issues include things like being a basketball conference first and of having an elite academic status (relative to other major academic conferences). But full-membership-only was never part of that. If you asked 100 ACC alumni in 1990 about what the ACC stands for, the first two things i mentioned would be mentioned by all 100, the idea of full-membership would never rate a mention by any of them.

In contrast, football independence is a part of ND's athletic identity, similar to the ACC emphasis on basketball and academics.

Adding a school like FSU, a school with a lower academic profile and a rep as a "football factory" was indeed a big cultural change for the ACC and one that hasn't been fully resolved even 20 years later. Adding ND as a partial member hasn't created any similar qualms and never will, precisely because it doesn't violate any deep ACC cultural norms.

I noticed how you erased part of the juicy details above. Time for you to admit you're wrong again. Well, let me help you anyway....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/footbal...e_dame_ap/



ACC Commissioner John Swofford said Friday in Florida that the ACC has had several talks with Notre Dame in the past about joining the conference, none of those discussions were recent.

"And all of our talks have been about them joining the conference as a full-time member. That's a basic premise we have built our league around -- being in all the way or not at all," he said. "So for them to be a member and play only a limited number of football games, I don't think that would even be feasible."


He uses the words BASIC PREMISE --in all the way or not at all. That is cultural identity.

Swofford can use BASIC PREMISE all he wants, but he is clearly talking about business, NOT culture. Sorry, if you knew ANYTHING about ACC culture you would admit i was correct. My distinction between FSU and Notre Dame should have made it crystal clear.

No Quo..it's culture. ACC has academic standards..that's culture. BIG prefers schools that are AAU...culture. ACC didn't want partial members...that's culture. If it were a business decision, they would have released a cost-benefits analysis that helped make the decision one way or the other. Instead, all Swofford said was...all in or stay out. That's culture my friend. To have all institutions fully committed.

Swofford's statement was the verbal equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis. As i said, ask ACC alums what the ACC means and they will mention basketball, academics, and he more honest will also admit to a kind of liberal cultural snobbery towards the deeper parts of the south. But nobody would mention being in for all sports.

That is why adding FSU, which violated all three of those cultural ideals, still has left a rift 20 years later while this ND deal has upset nobody.

I'm courious as to where you are getting your information about a supposed rift.

(05-20-2013 07:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:01 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I read it, and there is a difference between cultural and business resistance to making a change. The ACC opposed partial membership for business reasons, because Swofford and others running the show disliked the idea and the message it would send about ACC stability and viability. But there was nothing cultural about this opposition.

ACC cultural-identity issues include things like being a basketball conference first and of having an elite academic status (relative to other major academic conferences). But full-membership-only was never part of that. If you asked 100 ACC alumni in 1990 about what the ACC stands for, the first two things i mentioned would be mentioned by all 100, the idea of full-membership would never rate a mention by any of them.

In contrast, football independence is a part of ND's athletic identity, similar to the ACC emphasis on basketball and academics.

Adding a school like FSU, a school with a lower academic profile and a rep as a "football factory" was indeed a big cultural change for the ACC and one that hasn't been fully resolved even 20 years later. Adding ND as a partial member hasn't created any similar qualms and never will, precisely because it doesn't violate any deep ACC cultural norms.

I noticed how you erased part of the juicy details above. Time for you to admit you're wrong again. Well, let me help you anyway....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/footbal...e_dame_ap/



ACC Commissioner John Swofford said Friday in Florida that the ACC has had several talks with Notre Dame in the past about joining the conference, none of those discussions were recent.

"And all of our talks have been about them joining the conference as a full-time member. That's a basic premise we have built our league around -- being in all the way or not at all," he said. "So for them to be a member and play only a limited number of football games, I don't think that would even be feasible."


He uses the words BASIC PREMISE --in all the way or not at all. That is cultural identity.

Swofford can use BASIC PREMISE all he wants, but he is clearly talking about business, NOT culture. Sorry, if you knew ANYTHING about ACC culture you would admit i was correct. My distinction between FSU and Notre Dame should have made it crystal clear.

No Quo..it's culture. ACC has academic standards..that's culture. BIG prefers schools that are AAU...culture. ACC didn't want partial members...that's culture. If it were a business decision, they would have released a cost-benefits analysis that helped make the decision one way or the other. Instead, all Swofford said was...all in or stay out. That's culture my friend. To have all institutions fully committed.

Swofford's statement was the verbal equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis. As i said, ask ACC alums what the ACC means and they will mention basketball, academics, and the more honest will also admit to a kind of liberal cultural snobbery towards the deeper parts of the south. But nobody would mention being in for all sports.

That is why adding FSU, which violated all three of those cultural ideals, still has left a rift 20 years later while this ND deal has upset nobody.

This has become comical beyond belief. Quo do you know what a cost-benefits analysis statement from a conference commissioner sounds like? Go read what the Big 12 commissioner says about expansion and why certain teams don't make sense. He will tell you it's because it reduces their per team payout. He will also tell you that adding a FSU or Clemson is BENEFICIAL because they can maintain their payouts. John Swofford's statements are totally different. Doesn't mention anything about money or payouts or anything financial. What he did say is the basic premise of the league is full membership and that's something the league was built around. That creates a culture of fully committed members. Recently, Swofford had to backtrack on that notion because the landscape of college realignment has changed. They had to give up some of their cultural identity twice...first time for admitting a partial member-ND then again for admitting Louisville who didn't fit the academic profile.

(05-20-2013 07:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  You win. Jack Swarbrick is a total buffoon and was hoodwinked completely by those Tar Heels on Tobacco Road. The shame of it all. The incompetence. The sheer lack of simple negotiation skills.

ND always seems to come out worse for wear whenever it negotiates with other schools and conferences but, with an utter, complete failure of this magnitude, I suppose suicide is the only honorable recourse open to Jack Swabrick, after all.

He should follow the example of Japanese commanders and Soviet WW II generals and try to save face by blowing off his face.

Terry, your melodrama is amusing. I did not say the ND AD is a total buffoon or anythinge of the sort. I do think he gave away more games than he should have, about twice as many. Make of that what you will.

It is not melodrama, Steve, it is complete sarcasm.

(05-20-2013 07:24 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:01 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I noticed how you erased part of the juicy details above. Time for you to admit you're wrong again. Well, let me help you anyway....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/footbal...e_dame_ap/



ACC Commissioner John Swofford said Friday in Florida that the ACC has had several talks with Notre Dame in the past about joining the conference, none of those discussions were recent.

"And all of our talks have been about them joining the conference as a full-time member. That's a basic premise we have built our league around -- being in all the way or not at all," he said. "So for them to be a member and play only a limited number of football games, I don't think that would even be feasible."


He uses the words BASIC PREMISE --in all the way or not at all. That is cultural identity.

Swofford can use BASIC PREMISE all he wants, but he is clearly talking about business, NOT culture. Sorry, if you knew ANYTHING about ACC culture you would admit i was correct. My distinction between FSU and Notre Dame should have made it crystal clear.

No Quo..it's culture. ACC has academic standards..that's culture. BIG prefers schools that are AAU...culture. ACC didn't want partial members...that's culture. If it were a business decision, they would have released a cost-benefits analysis that helped make the decision one way or the other. Instead, all Swofford said was...all in or stay out. That's culture my friend. To have all institutions fully committed.

Swofford's statement was the verbal equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis. As i said, ask ACC alums what the ACC means and they will mention basketball, academics, and the more honest will also admit to a kind of liberal cultural snobbery towards the deeper parts of the south. But nobody would mention being in for all sports.

That is why adding FSU, which violated all three of those cultural ideals, still has left a rift 20 years later while this ND deal has upset nobody.

This has become comical beyond belief. Quo do you know what a cost-benefits analysis statement from a conference commissioner sounds like? Go read what the Big 12 commissioner says about expansion and why certain teams don't make sense. He will tell you it's because it reduces their per team payout. He will also tell you that adding a FSU or Clemson is BENEFICIAL because they can maintain their payouts. John Swofford's statements are totally different.

What is comical is your attempt to claim a cultural basis for the ACC not wanting to do partial memberships. If we asked 100 random ACC alumni about ACC values, we would get stuff like:

1) basketball comes first
2) emphasis on academics
3) a more cosmopolitan, progressive world outlook compared to the rest of the south

NOBODY would mention "no partial tie-ins". It is simply not a part of the ACC's historical/cultural identity. It just isn't.

And which explains the very different reactions to admitting FSU 20 years ago versus ND today.