ND finds a good"fit" in the ACC with its numerous private schools. There are also a lot of personal relationships between ND and other ACC schools.

Nathan Hatch used to be Prevost at ND. Kevin White was ND's AD. Stan Wilcox was an ND basketball player, etc...

Got to admit it brings a smile to my face to see or hear someone refer to Louisville as a football first school. It doesn't make it a reality but I like reading and hearing it none the less...LOL.

The truth is Louisville has invested millions in football since 1984 but we are still a basketball school. We are working hard to be both but have a long, long way to go. The 2nd expansion of our football stadium in 20 years to 66,000 is a testament to our commitment.

As for the ACC, just my opinion, nothing to base it on, but I believe Louisville would align themselves with Florida State, Clemson, Syracuse and Miami in conference matters. Tom Jurich used to say that Louisville fans owed a great deal to Notre Dame for the Irish speaking up on Louisville's behalf for Big East membership. I'm sure Louisville's relationship with Notre Dame didn't hurt Louisville when competing with UCONN for the spot in The ACC.

The ACC has been everything we could have hoped for and more. Everywhere I have gone the fans have been welcoming and went out of there way to make Louisville feel a part of the conference.

As for the premise of the thread, it takes a while to build strong relationships, give the conference time. Personally I believe expansion has been good to The ACC.
CJ

Historically, it is probably accurate to state that the ACC was an after thought in terms of football until FSU (the single greatest conference realignment gain ever in the modern era) joined the league.

It is also fair to say that the current ACC conference is a mixture of groupings not simply in terms of varying sports culture but also identity differences as well.

The closest parallel is of course the B12, but the original B12 birthed in the 90s was the one that broke apart with 4 programs leaving the conference whereas the ACC has only lost one at this point.

The acquisitions of ND even as a partial member has stabilized the conference in ways the additions of TCU and WVU (both programs which I admire greatly) have not done for the B12.

As for the original post which to me seem to imply that ACC football is somehow still behind the rest of the P5 (perhaps that is more on me than what the OP was attempting to say), I think the past 5 years has shown that not to be the case. Obviously not on the level of Greater 2, but of Lesser 3 the ACC has been the best so far.

It will be interesting to see if this trend holds or not.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-31-2018 08:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 07:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Essentially the same as the creation of the Big 12 though that's a uniquely loveless marriage done purely for TV money

The Big 12 was a merging of state Flagship football schools. The best of the SWC with the Big 8. The ACC brought in city state schools Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh. And then managed to let area state flagships West Virginia and Maryland slip away to the Big 10 and Big 12. I’d take the Big 12 over that hodgepodge thing any day

The ACC didn't "let" Maryland slip away to the Big 10. They simply couldn't match the $$$.

The ACC didn't want WVU although I have often said I wished the ACC had added SU, Pitt, WVU, and Louisville back in 2011.

In terms of state flagship schools, the biggest get would have been Rutgers - but then one has to keep in mind these are "athletic" conferences so it helps to have an athletic department.

The truth of the matter is the state flagships that were the cream of the crop were all already spoken for by the time the ACC expanded to 11, with the possible exception of WVU.

Lastly, don't underestimate "private" institutions or "city" state schools. Institutions such as Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, and BC have a lot to offer - otherwise why were they targets for multiple BCS conference expansion while some bigger state institutions were not?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-01-2018 08:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR, you make some excellent points which I'd like to comment on...

(04-01-2018 02:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's control by the old ACC core that has kept your conference in 5th place economically, just like it has been Texas that has kept its serfs in the field while they live in the Big House by refusing to grow the Big 12 beyond their own control.

FACT! There have been entire threads about how the old ACC core has blocked things which could/would have increased revenue dramatically - but at the expense of their control.

All that said, I think the UNC mafia has already lost control, they just don't know it. Duke certainly read the handwriting on the wall when Maryland jumped to the Big Ten, and I have my doubts that they would be willing to sacrifice the conference for their own interests when they know there is a danger that when the music stopped, Duke might be without a chair (sure, they MIGHT get into another conference, but it's far from a sure thing). Take that fear and multiply by 1000 in the case of Wake Forest - another vote lost.

Then, if it's a football vs. basketball decision, you can count on BC and Pitt to vote with the football teams (and probably Syracuse as well). I think the choice of Louisville instead of UConn proves that UNC/UVA no longer rule the ACC... JMO.

Hail Mark,

I agree. And with our new AD having huge ESPN ties, I have no doubt that SU will ultimately side with the football schools as well.

As for why the ACC is currently 5th place economically, I believe that has more to do with when and under what circumstances the ACC's tv contract was negotiated and of course, having both Miami and FSU mediocre by their standards as well.

If all national TV contracts were magically made null and void tomorrow and put out on the market but conferences would also have to remain as they currently are (no poaching allowed by the Greater 2), there is no way I see the ACC being behind either the Big 12 or the PAC.

Obviously the Greater 2 will still be substantially ahead (thanks mainly to their networks - but successful networks are the result of powerful name brands). However, imho, the ACC would be on the next level down and ahead of the other two of the Lesser 3. Of course, this will all be tested soon enough anyway. Within three years of the launch of the ACCN we will know if the ACC is closer to the Greater 2 or simply just more in line with the grouping they are in now.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-01-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 11:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not a foreigner, I grew up in Bowie, Maryland, about 10 miles from the Maryland campus in College Park. This was in the 1970s and 1980s when the ACC was a real, tight-knit, culturally unified conference. Attended many Maryland ACC football and basketball games during that time.

So I know the difference between the real ACC and a modern Frankenstein agglomeration.

I think the only time the ACC has been tight knit was the first few years after it split off from the SoCon. The time period you describe certainly wasn't "tight knit" as there were very deep divisions within the conference regarding membership, UNC's attempt to sabotage Clemson's football program, etc.

There's a difference between public and private divisions. The ACC had some internal strife - during the time period i mentioned there was a common belief at both Maryland and Virginia that the decision making structure of the ACC was run by North Carolina to their benefit.

But that was more like a family squabble, not reflective of fundamental misalignment. There's just no way to conjure BC and FSU, Syracuse and Georgia Tech, as culturally similar.

Yet you believe Stanford and Arizona State are culturally similar? Didn’t know Stanford had branch campuses and a large online program.

That's not the issue. Despite the 750 miles between them and much different climates, AZST and Stanford both have the culture and attitude of a Western mindset.

BC and FSU might as well be on different planets.

The ACC is a quilt of many disparate colors.

America is a quilt of many disparate colors. :)

As I see it, your usage of Western mindset (in the way you are attempting to use it) is no more a reality than Eastern mindset (again in the way you are attempting to use it). Both terms do exist but it has to do with Western culture (Europe, US, Canada, etc) versus Eastern culture (China, Japan, India, etc.).

This blanket "mindset" you wish to establish as fact, is up for debate. To me, it's like trying to state that the mindset of PA and OH are basically in tune with one another in some Northern or Midwestern cultural way, when in reality any analysis of the state of PA there is talk of three major forces, the metropolitan areas of Philly/Pitt, the suburban areas of both, and the Appalachian culture in between those metro and suburban areas.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-03-2018 11:26 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Historically, it is probably accurate to state that the ACC was an after thought in terms of football until FSU (the single greatest conference realignment gain ever in the modern era) joined the league.

It is also fair to say that the current ACC conference is a mixture of groupings not simply in terms of varying sports culture but also identity differences as well.

The closest parallel is of course the B12, but the original B12 birthed in the 90s was the one that broke apart with 4 programs leaving the conference whereas the ACC has only lost one at this point.

The acquisitions of ND even as a partial member has stabilized the conference in ways the additions of TCU and WVU (both programs which I admire greatly) have not done for the B12.

As for the original post which to me seem to imply that ACC football is somehow still behind the rest of the P5 (perhaps that is more on me than what the OP was attempting to say), I think the past 5 years has shown that not to be the case. Obviously not on the level of Greater 2, but of Lesser 3 the ACC has been the best so far.

It will be interesting to see if this trend holds or not.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame didn't stabilize anything. It was the mutual suicide pact that was stupidly signed. All Notre Dame did was add another mouth to feed on the side of the ledger where they don't add anything and steal away bowl bids from conference programs.

(04-03-2018 11:44 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 08:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 07:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Essentially the same as the creation of the Big 12 though that's a uniquely loveless marriage done purely for TV money

The Big 12 was a merging of state Flagship football schools. The best of the SWC with the Big 8. The ACC brought in city state schools Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh. And then managed to let area state flagships West Virginia and Maryland slip away to the Big 10 and Big 12. I’d take the Big 12 over that hodgepodge thing any day

The ACC didn't "let" Maryland slip away to the Big 10. They simply couldn't match the $$$.

The ACC didn't want WVU although I have often said I wished the ACC had added SU, Pitt, WVU, and Louisville back in 2011.

In terms of state flagship schools, the biggest get would have been Rutgers - but then one has to keep in mind these are "athletic" conferences so it helps to have an athletic department.

The truth of the matter is the state flagships that were the cream of the crop were all already spoken for by the time the ACC expanded to 11, with the possible exception of WVU.

Lastly, don't underestimate "private" institutions or "city" state schools. Institutions such as Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, and BC have a lot to offer - otherwise why were they targets for multiple BCS conference expansion while some bigger state institutions were not?

Cheers,
Neil

Yes and that poster is wrong that referred to them as “city state schools” when BC, Miami and Syracuse are private.

(03-31-2018 04:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  ACC guys correct me if I'm wrong but as I see it there are 3 types of ACC institutions:

The SEC schools: This group included Miami, Florida St, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville. These are football first schools and as the name suggests are more akin to the SEC than most of their ACC breathren. They don't have the air of academic superiority that some of their conference mates have

The Big East schools: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame. These are schools who have strong basketball culture but waning football culture (save Notre Dame) due to the Northeast being dominated by professional sports.

Greater Tobacco Road: UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT define this group and NC St, and WF are kind of tied to this group by proximity. These enrollment tendencies of these schools who are from out of state and who move out of state after graduation which doesn't help build a strong local following. The fact that most locals can't meet the rigorous academic requirements for admission. Many of these schools have put their eggs in the basketball basket and their football programs lag behind. They have the resources to compete but they simply don't invest in the sport. WF lands in this group because they hit the realignment lottery when the ACC was founded. I toyed with putting NC St with the SEC group but the cohesion they have with their instate foes puts them here.

The Big East faction and Greater Tobacco Road have basketball in common but the Big East's declining football product coupled with the fact that Tobacco Road doesn't invest in the sport (and the Carolina schools cannibalize eachother in a state that can't support 4 programs) drags the others down. Since football drives the bus in the long term this conference is going to fall further and further behind.

Frankly if I'm in the SEC group I'd be begging for a spot in the actual SEC where the member schools have the same priorities and a much broader appeal among the populus and whose sports revenue reflects a return on that investment.

If I'm the Big Ten, Notre Dame is the only school I would ever want to add. Tobacco Road will never do anything to improve the Big Ten football brand.

Agree +3

(04-03-2018 12:02 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 08:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR, you make some excellent points which I'd like to comment on...

(04-01-2018 02:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's control by the old ACC core that has kept your conference in 5th place economically, just like it has been Texas that has kept its serfs in the field while they live in the Big House by refusing to grow the Big 12 beyond their own control.

FACT! There have been entire threads about how the old ACC core has blocked things which could/would have increased revenue dramatically - but at the expense of their control.

All that said, I think the UNC mafia has already lost control, they just don't know it. Duke certainly read the handwriting on the wall when Maryland jumped to the Big Ten, and I have my doubts that they would be willing to sacrifice the conference for their own interests when they know there is a danger that when the music stopped, Duke might be without a chair (sure, they MIGHT get into another conference, but it's far from a sure thing). Take that fear and multiply by 1000 in the case of Wake Forest - another vote lost.

Then, if it's a football vs. basketball decision, you can count on BC and Pitt to vote with the football teams (and probably Syracuse as well). I think the choice of Louisville instead of UConn proves that UNC/UVA no longer rule the ACC... JMO.

Hail Mark,

I agree. And with our new AD having huge ESPN ties, I have no doubt that SU will ultimately side with the football schools as well.

As for why the ACC is currently 5th place economically, I believe that has more to do with when and under what circumstances the ACC's tv contract was negotiated and of course, having both Miami and FSU mediocre by their standards as well.

If all national TV contracts were magically made null and void tomorrow and put out on the market but conferences would also have to remain as they currently are (no poaching allowed by the Greater 2), there is no way I see the ACC being behind either the Big 12 or the PAC.

Obviously the Greater 2 will still be substantially ahead (thanks mainly to their networks - but successful networks are the result of powerful name brands). However, imho, the ACC would be on the next level down and ahead of the other two of the Lesser 3. Of course, this will all be tested soon enough anyway. Within three years of the launch of the ACCN we will know if the ACC is closer to the Greater 2 or simply just more in line with the grouping they are in now.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, myopic decisions have been made at the behest of Tobacco Road which have impaired the earning potential of the ACC. And which had already strained the relationship with Maryland. That is why I made that comment. Had they not had the hammer on votes I think the ACC would already be in third place financially.

(04-02-2018 01:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Got to admit it brings a smile to my face to see or hear someone refer to Louisville as a football first school. It doesn't make it a reality but I like reading and hearing it none the less...LOL.

The truth is Louisville has invested millions in football since 1984 but we are still a basketball school. We are working hard to be both but have a long, long way to go. The 2nd expansion of our football stadium in 20 years to 66,000 is a testament to our commitment.

As for the ACC, just my opinion, nothing to base it on, but I believe Louisville would align themselves with Florida State, Clemson, Syracuse and Miami in conference matters. Tom Jurich used to say that Louisville fans owed a great deal to Notre Dame for the Irish speaking up on Louisville's behalf for Big East membership. I'm sure Louisville's relationship with Notre Dame didn't hurt Louisville when competing with UCONN for the spot in The ACC.

The ACC has been everything we could have hoped for and more. Everywhere I have gone the fans have been welcoming and went out of there way to make Louisville feel a part of the conference.

As for the premise of the thread, it takes a while to build strong relationships, give the conference time. Personally I believe expansion has been good to The ACC.
CJ

Jim, actually louisville's dream quest is to be an all sports school. However, Men's Basketball and Football are the horses that pull the wagon today and pays the bills. The ACC membership now allows football to contribute almost as much as basketball. But, yes this was not the case in 1980 or back. Back then basketball kept Louisville Athletics alive.

It's interesting the direction a thread can take when you leave it be for a bit. Some of my thoughts:

I was a little surprised about how some folks categorized certain schools. There seems to be some sentiment that Clemson is closer to Tobacco Road than I believe. VT is another that others think is more under the thumb of UVA than an independent agent. Then there's Louisville, a school that began as a basketball power, thus acceptable to Tobacco Road, but to me appear to be a school who's long term future is growing their football brand.

There's also the question of league solidarity--some have expressed that diversity is the tie that binds but to me the tie that binds is the GOR. Schools that love eachother forever and always don't need giant punitive financial measures to keep their friends around. It's a tool by Tobacco Road to keep the schools who have attributes that are attractive to rival leagues from taking advantage of those traits. This is a manufactured league with a basketball pedigree with dubious football prowess aside from a couple schools, highlighted by Florida St, who made some bad realignment decisions a few decades ago and are now hostages. There are too many strange bed fellows match ups even within the Coastal and Atlantic divisions that fans don't get excited for and viewers don't want to watch. Who in the a Coastal cares about playing Pitt? Or BC and Cuse in the Atlantic? the current set up even prevents some natural rivalries (NC St/Duke, WF/UNC, Pitt/BC, Miami/Clem, Clem/UNC, FSU/GT) from occurring with any regularity.

IMHO I think Florida St and Clemson need to cultivate a stronger football culture league wide and if faced with resistance, take steps to move to a league where football and football revenue or valued. Miami, Louisville, VT, and NC St are schools that I think need to be a part of this movement and turn the tables on Tobacco Road and Tobacco Road North (aka old BE).

NC St is always going to be 3rd fiddle in basketball in their state--they need to step out of that shadow and establish themselves as the state's football first program. Louisville can still be a basketball school but there is a huge football power vacuum in the Bluegrass State and there is lots of potential growth sitting there in a top 50 media market that lacks pro sports. VT is a bit of a late bloomer but my have they come far since joining the BE in 91 and they are far more consumable for the average Virginian than UVA who rejects many of the state's best and brightest. Miami has certainly lost their way since their glory years but last season demonstrated that they aren't dead and can return to prominence.

If FSU, Clemson, NC St, Miami, Louisville, and VT can't improve ACC football or make a Super SEC happen then maybe the solution is moving as a group to the Big 12.

(04-04-2018 08:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's interesting the direction a thread can take when you leave it be for a bit. Some of my thoughts:

I was a little surprised about how some folks categorized certain schools. There seems to be some sentiment that Clemson is closer to Tobacco Road than I believe. VT is another that others think is more under the thumb of UVA than an independent agent. Then there's Louisville, a school that began as a basketball power, thus acceptable to Tobacco Road, but to me appear to be a school who's long term future is growing their football brand.

There's also the question of league solidarity--some have expressed that diversity is the tie that binds but to me the tie that binds is the GOR. Schools that love eachother forever and always don't need giant punitive financial measures to keep their friends around. It's a tool by Tobacco Road to keep the schools who have attributes that are attractive to rival leagues from taking advantage of those traits. This is a manufactured league with a basketball pedigree with dubious football prowess aside from a couple schools, highlighted by Florida St, who made some bad realignment decisions a few decades ago and are now hostages. There are too many strange bed fellows match ups even within the Coastal and Atlantic divisions that fans don't get excited for and viewers don't want to watch. Who in the a Coastal cares about playing Pitt? Or BC and Cuse in the Atlantic? the current set up even prevents some natural rivalries (NC St/Duke, WF/UNC, Pitt/BC, Miami/Clem, Clem/UNC, FSU/GT) from occurring with any regularity.

IMHO I think Florida St and Clemson need to cultivate a stronger football culture league wide and if faced with resistance, take steps to move to a league where football and football revenue or valued. Miami, Louisville, VT, and NC St are schools that I think need to be a part of this movement and turn the tables on Tobacco Road and Tobacco Road North (aka old BE).

NC St is always going to be 3rd fiddle in basketball in their state--they need to step out of that shadow and establish themselves as the state's football first program. Louisville can still be a basketball school but there is a huge football power vacuum in the Bluegrass State and there is lots of potential growth sitting there in a top 50 media market that lacks pro sports. VT is a bit of a late bloomer but my have they come far since joining the BE in 91 and they are far more consumable for the average Virginian than UVA who rejects many of the state's best and brightest. Miami has certainly lost their way since their glory years but last season demonstrated that they aren't dead and can return to prominence.

If FSU, Clemson, NC St, Miami, Louisville, and VT can't improve ACC football or make a Super SEC happen then maybe the solution is moving as a group to the Big 12.

I am not a fan of any conference, or the idea of conferences in general. However, I wanted to discuss your text that I put in bold.

Who cares about playing Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, etc...

Who cares about playing Vanderbilt or Kentucky in football?

Who cares about playing Utah or Washington State?

Who cares about playing Iowa State?

I think that one can make that claim about lower tier schools in any conference.

I also think that this idea that "football schools" should leave the ACC and "turn the tables" on Tobacco Road is a controversy that exists in your mind more than in reality.

Nobody is leaving the ACC before 2036, despite the sentiments of fans on message boards.

(04-03-2018 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 12:02 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 08:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR, you make some excellent points which I'd like to comment on...

(04-01-2018 02:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's control by the old ACC core that has kept your conference in 5th place economically, just like it has been Texas that has kept its serfs in the field while they live in the Big House by refusing to grow the Big 12 beyond their own control.

FACT! There have been entire threads about how the old ACC core has blocked things which could/would have increased revenues automatically but at the expense of their control.

All that said, I think the UNC mafia has already lost control, they just don't know it. Duke certainly read the handwriting on the wall when Maryland jumped to the Big Ten, and I have my doubts that they would be willing to sacrifice the conference for their own interests when they know there is a danger that when the music stopped, Duke might be without a chair (sure, they MIGHT get into another conference, but it's far from a sure thing). Take that fear and multiply by 1000 in the case of Wake Forest - another vote lost.

Then, if it's a football vs. basketball decision, you can count on BC and Pitt to vote with the football teams (and probably Syracuse as well). I think the choice of Louisville instead of UConn proves that UNC/UVA no longer rule the ACC... JMO.

Hail Mark,

I agree. And with our new AD having huge ESPN ties, I have no doubt that SU will ultimately side with the football schools as well.

As for why the ACC is currently 5th place economically, I believe that has more to do with when and under what circumstances the ACC's tv contract was negotiated and of course, having both Miami and FSU mediocre by their standards as well.

If all national TV contracts were magically made null and void tomorrow and put out on the market but conferences would also have to remain as they currently are (no poaching allowed by the Greater 2), there is no way I see the ACC being behind either the Big 12 or the PAC.

Obviously the Greater 2 will still be substantially ahead (thanks mainly to their networks - but successful networks are the result of powerful name brands). However, imho, the ACC would be on the next level down and ahead of the other two of the Lesser 3. Of course, this will all be tested soon enough anyway. Within three years of the launch of the ACCN we will know if the ACC is closer to the Greater 2 or simply just more in line with the grouping they are in now.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, myopic decisions have been made at the behest of Tobacco Road which have impaired the earning potential of the ACC. And which had already strained the relationship with Maryland. That is why I made that comment. Had they not had the hammer on votes I think the ACC would already be in third place financially.

Hail JR,

Yes, I know that you at least understand the overall value of the ACC conference at least in terms with where it stands amongst the Lesser 3 conferences. So I do appreciate that.

Also, as usual, we will continue to slightly disagree as to why it isn't at its true value level. As you point out, there are many threads regarding the history of bad ACC decisions on the various boards here and elsewhere. And I believe I have questioned ACC conference decisions as being behind the times or not well thought out (with the exception of the conference basketball tournament where they were a pioneer) perhaps more than any other poster.

Still many of those disagreements/decisions - scholarships/academic admissions standards; conference size: staying larger (Southern Conference after SEC schools left) when the trend was to go smaller and staying smaller (as the 8, 7, 8, then 9 team ACC) when the trend was to go bigger; as well as a few others not necessary to mention for this post. But are any of those decisions material now, especially since all but expansion with FSU took place prior to the dynamics of college athletics changing in the 80s?

My answer would be -no or perhaps, but probably only marginally so. Sure the academic admissions standards/scholarship issue might have made some ACC programs historically slightly better in football by the time the $$$ dynamics changed, but would even that have been sufficient enough to make any of the Tobacco Road crowd a perceived power in football? In other words Clemson would still have had to have done the heavy lifting in football and it's not as though South Carolina who did withdraw from the ACC was a football powerhouse after they left.

So again, as I see it, other than the cluster#$ck of getting to 12 either in the 90s (when expansion was sunk altogether) or in 2003 (when it actually was voted upon), what other decisions that the Tobacco Road crowd championed/opposed that Maryland may have actually opposed/favored would have resulted in increased revenue? And two of Tobacco Road (NC State and Wake) were in favor of that planned expansion in 2003 as I recall. Besides, as already pointed out by others in this thread expansion to 12 (or more) was always going to involve some institutions from the following list (Miami, Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, and Virginia Tech) with Notre Dame and Penn State as fool's gold. Outside of maybe West Virginia who else would have been a realistic candidate outside of the 5 listed above?

Lastly, until around 2004 or so the ACC conference distributed a higher per school average of money to its members. So while they were not thinking ahead, in their eyes they probably believed everything was fine. No excuse, but it does put some perspective of at least where their heads were at (particularly UNC and Duke).

What has allowed the Greater 2 to distance itself since then so openly so even the media reports on it now was the explosion of football $$$ in terms of TV contracts and eventually the success of their conference networks.

However, as we both know the disparity in individual program football revenue was always there in the Greater 2 due to their ticket revenues, donations, etc.

I still maintain that the ACC is last now within the Lesser 3 mainly because of the circumstances of their 2011 TV contract negotiations in 2010 (even though it doubled) due to:

1) FSU, Miami, and Clemson all down in football;

2) ACC basketball not being anywhere near what it was from the 1980s until expansion);

3) and ESPN and FOX not working together for premium content (like they later would with PAC and Big 12 TV contracts - yes they had worked together on 2nd tier rights, but not with 1st tier until the following year to try and keep Comcast locked out, etc.).

As always those are my thoughts on this topic and a pleasure discussing it with you.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-04-2018 08:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's interesting the direction a thread can take when you leave it be for a bit. Some of my thoughts:

I was a little surprised about how some folks categorized certain schools. There seems to be some sentiment that Clemson is closer to Tobacco Road than I believe. VT is another that others think is more under the thumb of UVA than an independent agent. Then there's Louisville, a school that began as a basketball power, thus acceptable to Tobacco Road, but to me appear to be a school who's long term future is growing their football brand.

There's also the question of league solidarity--some have expressed that diversity is the tie that binds but to me the tie that binds is the GOR. Schools that love eachother forever and always don't need giant punitive financial measures to keep their friends around. It's a tool by Tobacco Road to keep the schools who have attributes that are attractive to rival leagues from taking advantage of those traits. This is a manufactured league with a basketball pedigree with dubious football prowess aside from a couple schools, highlighted by Florida St, who made some bad realignment decisions a few decades ago and are now hostages. There are too many strange bed fellows match ups even within the Coastal and Atlantic divisions that fans don't get excited for and viewers don't want to watch. Who in the a Coastal cares about playing Pitt? Or BC and Cuse in the Atlantic? the current set up even prevents some natural rivalries (NC St/Duke, WF/UNC, Pitt/BC, Miami/Clem, Clem/UNC, FSU/GT) from occurring with any regularity.

IMHO I think Florida St and Clemson need to cultivate a stronger football culture league wide and if faced with resistance, take steps to move to a league where football and football revenue or valued. Miami, Louisville, VT, and NC St are schools that I think need to be a part of this movement and turn the tables on Tobacco Road and Tobacco Road North (aka old BE).

NC St is always going to be 3rd fiddle in basketball in their state--they need to step out of that shadow and establish themselves as the state's football first program. Louisville can still be a basketball school but there is a huge football power vacuum in the Bluegrass State and there is lots of potential growth sitting there in a top 50 media market that lacks pro sports. VT is a bit of a late bloomer but my have they come far since joining the BE in 91 and they are far more consumable for the average Virginian than UVA who rejects many of the state's best and brightest. Miami has certainly lost their way since their glory years but last season demonstrated that they aren't dead and can return to prominence.

If FSU, Clemson, NC St, Miami, Louisville, and VT can't improve ACC football or make a Super SEC happen then maybe the solution is moving as a group to the Big 12.

Make no mistake: while ACC teams may not get excited about every possible conference opponent, there are plenty of strong ties within the league.
Who in the Coastal cares about playing Pitt? VT and Miami.
Who in the Atlantic cares about playing Case? BC and Louisville.

VT is not under UVa's thumb - but we do like playing them, along with UNC, Duke, GT and Miami. In fact, VT might fit the ACC better than most schools.

Finally, as for Clemson and Florida State: the Tigers are founding members of the ACC, and FSU has been around for 26 years. You may as well suggest Michigan State leave the Big Ten!

(04-05-2018 05:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's interesting the direction a thread can take when you leave it be for a bit. Some of my thoughts:

I was a little surprised about how some folks categorized certain schools. There seems to be some sentiment that Clemson is closer to Tobacco Road than I believe. VT is another that others think is more under the thumb of UVA than an independent agent. Then there's Louisville, a school that began as a basketball power, thus acceptable to Tobacco Road, but to me appear to be a school who's long term future is growing their football brand.

There's also the question of league solidarity--some have expressed that diversity is the tie that binds but to me the tie that binds is the GOR. Schools that love eachother forever and always don't need giant punitive financial measures to keep their friends around. It's a tool by Tobacco Road to keep the schools who have attributes that are attractive to rival leagues from taking advantage of those traits. This is a manufactured league with a basketball pedigree with dubious football prowess aside from a couple schools, highlighted by Florida St, who made some bad realignment decisions a few decades ago and are now hostages. There are too many strange bed fellows match ups even within the Coastal and Atlantic divisions that fans don't get excited for and viewers don't want to watch. Who in the a Coastal cares about playing Pitt? Or BC and Cuse in the Atlantic? the current set up even prevents some natural rivalries (NC St/Duke, WF/UNC, Pitt/BC, Miami/Clem, Clem/UNC, FSU/GT) from occurring with any regularity.

IMHO I think Florida St and Clemson need to cultivate a stronger football culture league wide and if faced with resistance, take steps to move to a league where football and football revenue or valued. Miami, Louisville, VT, and NC St are schools that I think need to be a part of this movement and turn the tables on Tobacco Road and Tobacco Road North (aka old BE).

NC St is always going to be 3rd fiddle in basketball in their state--they need to step out of that shadow and establish themselves as the state's football first program. Louisville can still be a basketball school but there is a huge football power vacuum in the Bluegrass State and there is lots of potential growth sitting there in a top 50 media market that lacks pro sports. VT is a bit of a late bloomer but my have they come far since joining the BE in 91 and they are far more consumable for the average Virginian than UVA who rejects many of the state's best and brightest. Miami has certainly lost their way since their glory years but last season demonstrated that they aren't dead and can return to prominence.

If FSU, Clemson, NC St, Miami, Louisville, and VT can't improve ACC football or make a Super SEC happen then maybe the solution is moving as a group to the Big 12.

I am not a fan of any conference, or the idea of conferences in general. However, I wanted to discuss your text that I put in bold.

Who cares about playing Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, etc...

Who cares about playing Vanderbilt or Kentucky in football?

Who cares about playing Utah or Washington State?

Who cares about playing Iowa State?

I think that one can make that claim about lower tier schools in any conference.

I also think that this idea that "football schools" should leave the ACC and "turn the tables" on Tobacco Road is a controversy that exists in your mind more than in reality.

Nobody is leaving the ACC before 2036, despite the sentiments of fans on message boards.

I agree with Terry. I like the ACC as a football conference. I would like to play all of the Coastal teams more often. ACC football has improved & Tobacco Rd knows that football drives the bus. The ACC has made the CFP every year, not all of the P5's can say that. I don't see FSU joining the ACC as a mistake either. ND membership has been a positive for both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-01-2018 04:58 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I think a lot of people are missing the identity of the ACC. The identity of the conference is its diversity. Just how the diverse nature of the U.S. is part of its diversity, the diversity of its institutions is the ACC's. You can argue that there was a time 30+ years ago that the ACC was basically a Piedmont conference, but even then you had Maryland.

Nope, 30 years ago the ACC was a tight-knit conference, very culturally like-minded.

The addition of FSU to feed the Football Gods changed that.

(04-03-2018 12:25 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 11:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

I think the only time the ACC has been tight knit was the first few years after it split off from the SoCon. The time period you describe certainly wasn't "tight knit" as there were very deep divisions within the conference regarding membership, UNC's attempt to sabotage Clemson's football program, etc.

There's a difference between public and private divisions. The ACC had some internal strife - during the time period i mentioned there was a common belief at both Maryland and Virginia that the decision making structure of the ACC was run by North Carolina to their benefit.

But that was more like a family squabble, not reflective of fundamental misalignment. There's just no way to conjure BC and FSU, Syracuse and Georgia Tech, as culturally similar.

Yet you believe Stanford and Arizona State are culturally similar? Didn’t know Stanford had branch campuses and a large online program.

That's not the issue. Despite the 750 miles between them and much different climates, AZST and Stanford both have the culture and attitude of a Western mindset.

BC and FSU might as well be on different planets.

The ACC is a quilt of many disparate colors.

America is a quilt of many disparate colors. :)

As I see it, your usage of Western mindset (in the way you are attempting to use it) is no more a reality than Eastern mindset (again in the way you are attempting to use it). Both terms do exist but it has to do with Western culture (Europe, US, Canada, etc) versus Eastern culture (China, Japan, India, etc.).

This blanket "mindset" you wish to establish as fact, is up for debate. To me, it's like trying to state that the mindset of PA and OH are basically in tune with one another in some Northern or Midwestern cultural way, when in reality any analysis of the state of PA there is talk of three major forces, the metropolitan areas of Philly/Pitt, the suburban areas of both, and the Appalachian culture in between those metro and suburban areas.

Cheers,
Neil

I just don't think there's any serious doubt that the PAC is a culturally cohesive conference while the ACC isn't.

Nit-picking this at a sociological/anthropological level doesn't change that.

The PAC is culturally unified, despite whatever objective differences exist among its members. The ACC is a hydra, it's just the way it is.

(04-04-2018 08:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's interesting the direction a thread can take when you leave it be for a bit. Some of my thoughts:

I was a little surprised about how some folks categorized certain schools. There seems to be some sentiment that Clemson is closer to Tobacco Road than I believe. VT is another that others think is more under the thumb of UVA than an independent agent. Then there's Louisville, a school that began as a basketball power, thus acceptable to Tobacco Road, but to me appear to be a school who's long term future is growing their football brand.

There's also the question of league solidarity--some have expressed that diversity is the tie that binds but to me the tie that binds is the GOR. Schools that love each other forever and always don't need giant punitive financial measures to keep their friends around. It's a tool by Tobacco Road to keep the schools who have attributes that are attractive to rival leagues from taking advantage of those traits. This is a manufactured league with a basketball pedigree with dubious football prowess aside from a couple schools, highlighted by Florida St, who made some bad realignment decisions a few decades ago and are now hostages. There are too many strange bed fellows match ups even within the Coastal and Atlantic divisions that fans don't get excited for and viewers don't want to watch. Who in the a Coastal cares about playing Pitt? Or BC and Cuse in the Atlantic? the current set up even prevents some natural rivalries (NC St/Duke, WF/UNC, Pitt/BC, Miami/Clem, Clem/UNC, FSU/GT) from occurring with any regularity.

IMHO I think Florida St and Clemson need to cultivate a stronger football culture league wide and if faced with resistance, take steps to move to a league where football and football revenue or valued. Miami, Louisville, VT, and NC St are schools that I think need to be a part of this movement and turn the tables on Tobacco Road and Tobacco Road North (aka old BE).

NC St is always going to be 3rd fiddle in basketball in their state--they need to step out of that shadow and establish themselves as the state's football first program. Louisville can still be a basketball school but there is a huge football power vacuum in the Bluegrass State and there is lots of potential growth sitting there in a top 50 media market that lacks pro sports. VT is a bit of a late bloomer but my have they come far since joining the BE in 91 and they are far more consumable for the average Virginian than UVA who rejects many of the state's best and brightest. Miami has certainly lost their way since their glory years but last season demonstrated that they aren't dead and can return to prominence.

If FSU, Clemson, NC St, Miami, Louisville, and VT can't improve ACC football or make a Super SEC happen then maybe the solution is moving as a group to the Big 12.

So many statements to unpack above. Where to begin? Is the ACC the only conference with a GOR? You make it seem like it is.

In response to the first bolded statement, I agree with it, mostly. The ACC was never a powerhouse football conference throughout its history. Doesn't mean it won't be in the future. The pieces are now there with FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, Louisville, and GT to get there. But until it has three of the six operating at a high level each and every year, this is mostly a valid statement by you. I just get the impression in your mind it is never going to happen, whereas I believe it is on the verge of happening soon.

In response to the second bolded statement, have you checked out some of the match-ups in the other conferences amongst the Lesser 3? As for tv ratings, as I have posted now for the past 4 years, the ACC tv football ratings consistently rank third and it's not even close with the other two from the Lesser 3.

In response to the third bolded statement, well you may want to consider spreading the blame around for this to include Jim Delany as well. He's the one who squashed the original proposed amendment to the championship rules that would done away with the two division requirement and allowed the ACC to consider developing a 3-5-5 scheduling arrangement with the two highest ranked teams meeting in the championship game.

In response to the fourth bolded statement above, I think that is why the ACC expanded with Louisville instead of Connecticut. And in case you haven't noticed, the ACC has hired quite a few good coaches the past three or four years. It's what makes me hopeful for the conference's football future.

In response to the last bolded statement, you aren't the first to have suggested this or something close to it, usually without NC State in the listing of ACC schools. I guess I don't understand why you create a thread about a stitched up conference and competing identities but now end with a suggestion of adding a third distinct body part to a conference that already has two of its own to manage, and, imho, not managing it as well as the ACC is doing with its disparate parts.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-05-2018 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 12:25 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's a difference between public and private divisions. The ACC had some internal strife - during the time period i mentioned there was a common belief at both Maryland and Virginia that the decision making structure of the ACC was run by North Carolina to their benefit.

But that was more like a family squabble, not reflective of fundamental misalignment. There's just no way to conjure BC and FSU, Syracuse and Georgia Tech, as culturally similar.

Yet you believe Stanford and Arizona State are culturally similar? Didn’t know Stanford had branch campuses and a large online program.

That's not the issue. Despite the 750 miles between them and much different climates, AZST and Stanford both have the culture and attitude of a Western mindset.

BC and FSU might as well be on different planets.

The ACC is a quilt of many disparate colors.

America is a quilt of many disparate colors. :)

As I see it, your usage of Western mindset (in the way you are attempting to use it) is no more a reality than Eastern mindset (again in the way you are attempting to use it). Both terms do exist but it has to do with Western culture (Europe, US, Canada, etc) versus Eastern culture (China, Japan, India, etc.).

This blanket "mindset" you wish to establish as fact, is up for debate. To me, it's like trying to state that the mindset of PA and OH are basically in tune with one another in some Northern or Midwestern cultural way, when in reality any analysis of the state of PA there is talk of three major forces, the metropolitan areas of Philly/Pitt, the suburban areas of both, and the Appalachian culture in between those metro and suburban areas.

Cheers,
Neil

I just don't think there's any serious doubt that the PAC is a culturally cohesive conference while the ACC isn't.

Nit-picking this at a sociological/anthropological level doesn't change that.

The PAC is culturally unified, despite whatever objective differences exist among its members. The ACC is a hydra, it's just the way it is.

If you wanted to express that the PAC is more culturally unified than the ACC, I have no problem with this.

But you attempted to establish AS FACT that Stanford and Arizona State are culturally unified and presented no evidence to support this outside incorrectly using the term "western mindset".

Cheers,
Neil