(09-05-2017 02:25 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 11:04 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:40 AM)jtwvu87 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Between now and 2025, West Virginia will play at least one ACC opponent every year, and two in 2022 (Va Tech and Pitt).

I hope the ACC will eventually get over its animosity and/or disrespect toward the Mountaineers, and will put them at the top of their potential expansion list. They are, IMO, the best available candidate who would actually consider making a switch.

that would be great. i knw fan behavior & academics will need 2 improve & perhaps the ACC would call us Ken D!

They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Besides Maryland and Penn State, WV would be the most natural all sport pickup that the ACC could get. I was upset with WV the way they left the BE. And then the way the classless loudmouth Luck would spout off. But now he's gone and I'm over the whole BE thing, now that SU is solidly in the ACC. I would love to see WV in the ACC.

I've said numerous times on the board that I'd be receptive to adding WVU to the ACC. However, older VT fans who remember how bad things got between the two fanbases want nothing to do with them.

The part that becomes trickier is slotting WVU into the division alignment. Personally, I think it makes the most sense to slide them into the Coastal where you'd have annual matchups of the Backyard Brawl & Black Diamond Trophy. But given the sheer numbers of conference members at that point, what do you do for cross division matchups? Syracuse probably wants to play WVU & Pitt every year, which wouldn't happen with the current scheduling ethos.

Perhaps if the trend is to do away with conference championship games as some suggest, then simply add WVU and go with a 2-6-6 scheduling model for a 15-team football league.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:40 AM)jtwvu87 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Between now and 2025, West Virginia will play at least one ACC opponent every year, and two in 2022 (Va Tech and Pitt).

I hope the ACC will eventually get over its animosity and/or disrespect toward the Mountaineers, and will put them at the top of their potential expansion list. They are, IMO, the best available candidate who would actually consider making a switch.

that would be great. i knw fan behavior & academics will need 2 improve & perhaps the ACC would call us Ken D!

They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:40 AM)jtwvu87 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Between now and 2025, West Virginia will play at least one ACC opponent every year, and two in 2022 (Va Tech and Pitt).

I hope the ACC will eventually get over its animosity and/or disrespect toward the Mountaineers, and will put them at the top of their potential expansion list. They are, IMO, the best available candidate who would actually consider making a switch.

that would be great. i knw fan behavior & academics will need 2 improve & perhaps the ACC would call us Ken D!

They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-05-2017 08:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:40 AM)jtwvu87 Wrote:  that would be great. i knw fan behavior & academics will need 2 improve & perhaps the ACC would call us Ken D!

They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

While I don't want to steal LP4's thunder...........in my mind "tobacco road" included Duke, Carolina, State and Wake Forest. It has never included UVa.
BTW, the town of Wake Forest where the school of the same name was located until 1956, is less than 20 miles due east of Durham.

(09-04-2017 12:08 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I was really impressed by the turnout. It put NCSU and South Carolina to shame. It's that passion that makes college sports special.

When I was young I felt the same way about sex. Now it's the familiarity that makes it special. I guess that's why old folks like traditional rivalries. It reminds us of marriage. We feel the same way about in laws as we do Alabama. But we can't avoid either at least once a year.

(09-05-2017 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

While I don't want to steal LP4's thunder...........in my mind "tobacco road" included Duke, Carolina, State and Wake Forest. It has never included UVa.
BTW, the town of Wake Forest where the school of the same name was located until 1956, is less than 20 miles due east of Durham.

One more thing Neil,
The Duke family( American Tobacco Company) moved Trinity College (Trinity, NC. SW of Greensboro) to Durham and renamed the school. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company moved Wake Forest College to Winston-Salem from the town of Wake Forest, but the school refused to change it's name to Reynolds University.
The original Wake Forest Baptist Seminary remained in the Town of Wake Forest on the old campus. Wake Forest University also has a seminary in Winston-Salem, but it is non-denominational.

(09-05-2017 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...We feel the same way about in laws as we do Alabama. But we can't avoid either at least once a year.

The loud, obnoxious kind of in laws... the kind who park their RV in front of your house and empty their septic tank into your storm drain?

Coastal - Atlantic
Miami FSU
VT Clemson
NC NC State
Duke WF
Virginia GT
Syracuse Louisville
Pittsburgh BC
WV Cincinnati


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even simpler:

Coastal / Atlantic
Pitt / BC
WVU / Syracuse
UVA / Cincinnati
Va Tech / Louisville
UNC / NC State
Duke / Wake
Ga Tech / Clemson
Miami / FSU

Leave the Southernmost teams as-is (their pairings are just fine already), but change things around in the North. This basically gives every team except UVA a nearly ideal crossover rival. If it's a problem, you could either:

a) leave UVA / Louisville and just pair Va Tech with Cincinnati
b) include Duke and Wake in the mix (they don't seem to care about playing each other) and go with
UVA / Wake
Va Tech / Louisvile
Duke / Cincinnati

PRO: This adds WVU's biggest ACC rivalries: Pitt, VT and Syracuse
This adds a prime recruiting territory to the Atlantic.
It also adds a winnable game to the Atlantic.
CON: What to do with UVA.
It probably dictates a 9-game schedule.

Best to stick as-is unless WVU comes with Notre Dame (in which case you completely blow up the divisions and go Old ACC / Old Big East), or the NCAA approves divisionless conference scheduling (in which case you just add WVU and stop).

(09-05-2017 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  They would be the rug that tied the room together to quote another Dude. Last year WVU made the NCAA baseball tournament (check), they bridge the geographical void that the Maryland departure created (check), they have natural rivalries with Pitt and Va Tech and old ties to Miami and Syracuse (check), they play good and sometimes very good to great basketball (check), and they would be acceptable to the football first schools (check).

But as usual they would have to overcome the thinking of the Tobacco Road mafia. So we'll see.

Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

While I don't want to steal LP4's thunder...........in my mind "tobacco road" included Duke, Carolina, State and Wake Forest. It has never included UVa.
BTW, the town of Wake Forest where the school of the same name was located until 1956, is less than 20 miles due east of Durham.

Understood. But what I am trying to ascertain is, is there a nuanced difference between "tobacco road" in terms of the compact geographical nature of the 4 NC schools and "tobacco road" in terms of influence within the conference itself?

In other words, when I see comments by Clemson or FSU fans railing against "tobacco road" for certain decisions made by the conference, are they really lumping Wake Forest in said grouping? Heck, if LP4 is accurate on many of his historical posts, I am not even sure NC State belongs in that grouping.

But at least as I indicated above there appears to be historical precedent for Wake not truly belonging as one of the controversial "decision makers" due to their seemingly overwhelming perception by Old Guard fans as the "compromiser"/"mediator" in these disputes. This role by WF, however, could also be overstated. Is it?

Anyway, it seems to me (again as an "outsider") that every one of these so-called controversial decisions the ACC has made in their history has heavily involved at least two, usually three, from the grouping of Duke, UVa, and UNC, with MD perhaps more heavily involved through the late 70s but less so starting with the 80s. And from my perspective, it's the 80s onward that I focus on since it was starting with this decade that changed the college athletic landscape forever.

I am willing to be convinced that the shorthand term of "tobacco road" being used by those outside NC shouldn't be applied at all. But I don't think it is a mistake to assign decision making power (both positives and blunders) to the grouping of Duke, UNC, and UVa while acknowledging that these three will not always agree on everything such as UNC reportedly nominating ACC membership for both VT and WVU (at different times) and then later UVa having to insist on VT when Duke and UNC were against.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-06-2017 11:07 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  Carolina did place West Virginia's name in nomination for membership in the ACC (1954 I think).

Some folks just make things up about "tobacco road" just because it fits their overall narrative.

Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

While I don't want to steal LP4's thunder...........in my mind "tobacco road" included Duke, Carolina, State and Wake Forest. It has never included UVa.
BTW, the town of Wake Forest where the school of the same name was located until 1956, is less than 20 miles due east of Durham.

Understood. But what I am trying to ascertain is, is there a nuanced difference between "tobacco road" in terms of the compact geographical nature of the 4 NC schools and "tobacco road" in terms of influence within the conference itself?

In other words, when I see comments by Clemson or FSU fans railing against "tobacco road" for certain decisions made by the conference, are they really lumping Wake Forest in said grouping? Heck, if LP4 is accurate on many of his historical posts, I am not even sure NC State belongs in that grouping.

But at least as I indicated above there appears to be historical precedent for Wake not truly belonging as one of the controversial "decision makers" due to their seemingly overwhelming perception by Old Guard fans as the "compromiser"/"mediator" in these disputes. This role by WF, however, could also be overstated. Is it?

Anyway, it seems to me (again as an "outsider") that every one of these so-called controversial decisions the ACC has made in their history has heavily involved at least two, usually three, from the grouping of Duke, UVa, and UNC, with MD perhaps more heavily involved through the late 70s but less so starting with the 80s. And from my perspective, it's the 80s onward that I focus on since it was starting with this decade that changed the college athletic landscape forever.

I am willing to be convinced that the shorthand term of "tobacco road" being used by those outside NC shouldn't be applied at all. But I don't think it is a mistake to assign decision making power (both positives and blunders) to the grouping of Duke, UNC, and UVa while acknowledging that these three will not always agree on everything such as UNC reportedly nominating ACC membership for both VT and WVU (at different times) and then later UVa having to insist on VT when Duke and UNC were against.

Cheers,
Neil

There is only one constant in ACC decision making.....Duke University. That's is where all of the conference power is concentrated. They may enlist assistance from Carolina or Wake (or if they're desperate, State), but Durham is the seat of ACC power and always has been.

(09-06-2017 11:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:07 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:00 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 07:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Correct, and the motion died for lack of a second. MD, UVa, and Duke are the ones that have always blackballed WVa. To get in now, VT has to sponsor them (yes VT not Pitt - don't ask why). Then they have to satisfy WF, GT, who will be leaned on by Duke and UVa. ND will have to actively support them as well.

It's not Tobacco Road keeping them out for the past 70 years.

If the ptb at VT AND UVa do not want them in the conference, then they will not be in the conference

I think northeasterners must have an entirely different definition of 'tobacco road" then some of the old guard ACC fans.

For us, "tobacco road" (as it relates specifically to the ACC) has always meant UNC, Duke, NC State, and UVa. Most of us rarely consider WF as part of that crowd despite its location mainly because we have basically bought into the line we have been fed by Old Guard ACC fans about WF being the great "moderator"/"compromiser" of the Old ACC.

So to us, we keep being surprised by mentions of certain things not being the result of resistance by tobacco road and yet invariably when we are told who has resisted certain changes in the ACC from the Old Guard fans it always seems to include at least two but usually three of Duke, UNC, NC State, and UVa.

I am sure, however, you will enlighten us all soon about this misinterpretation.

Cheers,
Neil

While I don't want to steal LP4's thunder...........in my mind "tobacco road" included Duke, Carolina, State and Wake Forest. It has never included UVa.
BTW, the town of Wake Forest where the school of the same name was located until 1956, is less than 20 miles due east of Durham.

Understood. But what I am trying to ascertain is, is there a nuanced difference between "tobacco road" in terms of the compact geographical nature of the 4 NC schools and "tobacco road" in terms of influence within the conference itself?

In other words, when I see comments by Clemson or FSU fans railing against "tobacco road" for certain decisions made by the conference, are they really lumping Wake Forest in said grouping? Heck, if LP4 is accurate on many of his historical posts, I am not even sure NC State belongs in that grouping.

But at least as I indicated above there appears to be historical precedent for Wake not truly belonging as one of the controversial "decision makers" due to their seemingly overwhelming perception by Old Guard fans as the "compromiser"/"mediator" in these disputes. This role by WF, however, could also be overstated. Is it?

Anyway, it seems to me (again as an "outsider") that every one of these so-called controversial decisions the ACC has made in their history has heavily involved at least two, usually three, from the grouping of Duke, UVa, and UNC, with MD perhaps more heavily involved through the late 70s but less so starting with the 80s. And from my perspective, it's the 80s onward that I focus on since it was starting with this decade that changed the college athletic landscape forever.

I am willing to be convinced that the shorthand term of "tobacco road" being used by those outside NC shouldn't be applied at all. But I don't think it is a mistake to assign decision making power (both positives and blunders) to the grouping of Duke, UNC, and UVa while acknowledging that these three will not always agree on everything such as UNC reportedly nominating ACC membership for both VT and WVU (at different times) and then later UVa having to insist on VT when Duke and UNC were against.

Cheers,
Neil

There is only one constant in ACC decision making.....Duke University. That's is where all of the conference power is concentrated. They may enlist assistance from Carolina or Wake (or if they're desperate, State), but Durham is the seat of ACC power and always has been.

I could actually believe that when referencing power in the conference from 50s, 60s, and maybe even in the 70s (although LP4's posts would seem to indicate Duke and Maryland were equal in that time frame in terms of power).

Still it is kind of hard for an outsider to wrap his head around that being the case from the 80s onward. And especially coming from a fan from one of the two most important current conference programs (UNC and FSU) and with UNC being a founding member of the conference.

Maybe having the current commissioner being from UNC colors it somewhat to the outsiders like me. But my being a fan from perhaps "the power member" of its former conference I have no problem with acknowledging Syracuse still managed to influence the conference in the majority of its key decisions (both good and bad) despite the commissioners all being from Providence.

It almost seems like you as a North Carolina fan want to make UNC out as a weak-willed servant of Duke. Is that how you truly perceive them?

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks, Hokies. It's always nice to make 'insider' dudes cry in their baby formula.