(08-25-2019 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 06:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Why would any conference not want Miami?? Take a good look at the SEC and compare how many private colleges/universities there are vs how many public schools there are and then do the same for the ACC. I'm sure Florida's president at the time remembered Miami football being on its deathbed, only to come back to life under Howard Schnellenburger. Howard had a lot of personal problems that wouldn't go over very well with SEC presidents. But without Howard, Miami really wouldn't be worth taking. That's probably why UF looked more at FSU than Miami. Alabama no doubt remembered GT's "ND of the South" flop and probably put Miami in the same category.

Also around this same time, the SEC was getting "Texas fever," and wanted the Texas public schools desperately. This is what killed Miami to the SEC.

No, Miami killed “Miami to the SEC” when they decided to join the Big East. Does anyone seriously believe the SEC preferred South Carolina to Miami in 1990?

SEC expansion was not seen as an overwhelming success at the time missing out on Texas, TAMU, FSU, and Miami. Many SEC fans downplay it, but being snubbed by the FLA schools hurt their pride.

Just no. I truly had family in on the 1990 realignment. Miami was only in a defensive list should the Big 10 make a move South. They were never in the original 4 or 6 that the SEC was willing to offer.

The six were officially at that time Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, Clemson who declined and South Carolina took their place, and an unnamed friend of Texas (Oklahoma) who was strictly contingent upon what Texas did. Texas backed out and with them OU. F.S.U. opted for the ACC. Clemson who was only ever tepid did as well. That left Broyles wanting in because he knew Texas would be left out of the rumors they were beginning to hear about joining the Big 8. South Carolina applied and were taken as #12. Texas A&M didn't have the ability to disengage from Texas at the time.

That's the long and short of it. Miami said they were offered, they were not. They were contacted. So were other schools prior to the offers going out. West Virginia applied, Virginia Tech inquired but did not apply to my knowledge. The ones in the works who we were willing to offer are those named.

A few years ago Boren claimed he was issued an invitation he was not. The SEC spoke with him to see if OU wanted to accompany A&M. Boren wanted OSU included. There was no offer. These schools and presidents make public statements all the time for their own PR. Nothing new there as it has and will still go on.

What sort of southern move would the Big Ten have made at the time?

A 16 team SEC in the early 90s would have been wild.

Miami was such a strange animal—lots of folks envied their success but not too many folks wanted the upstart, thug persona embracing Canes in their league. The Big East ended up with them by default when everyone else passed.

Florida St, Clemson, and South Carolina all seem more like the SEC’s style. I wonder what Clemson’s motivation was in staying loyal to the ACC was?

After things with the SEC didn’t work out the first time around I’m curious of Texas and TAMU reached out again before consummating their relationship with the Big 8 or if that ship had already sailed.

(08-25-2019 02:00 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  WVU traded to ACC
NC State to SEC and move Mizzou to west division
Arkansas to Big 12

ACC splits into original 7 and Big East 7 divisions reuniting old rivalries. UNC Vs State is now annually in noncon. Adds another notable football school without losing any footprint and technically adding some households to the ACCN although WV isn’t big. Allows for historical opponent based divisions to take hold too. More rivalries played helping tv ratings.

SEC gets another new state for their footprint and network that’s a cultural fit without ripping the core nucleus of UNC/UVA/Duke/Clemson/FSU from the ACC.

Arkansas rejoins 4 SWC foes and plays in a league where former glory might be more likely to be regained. Big 12 gets a storied program with a ton of history in the SWC that is also close enough to the OK/KS schools to start up new ties there.

Or


WVU to ACC
UVA or BC to B1G. Kick Indiana to the west division
Nebraska to Big 12

Similar idea on point one and three. Now the B1G gets new markets for their network and academic fits.


In the crazy world of realignment the Arkansas route would reunite/make more frequent a ton of rivalries and really only costs you the non-UNC rivalries for NC State but sends them back with South Carolina after decades off.

Well you could send Missouri, Texas A&M and Nebraska to the Big 12 and Maryland and West Virginia to the ACC. The Big 10 and SEC would be better by being back at 12 and the Big 12 wouldn't have a silly name anymore. And the ACC would have almost the entire east coast with 16 schools.

(08-25-2019 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:00 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  WVU traded to ACC
NC State to SEC and move Mizzou to west division
Arkansas to Big 12

ACC splits into original 7 and Big East 7 divisions reuniting old rivalries. UNC Vs State is now annually in noncon. Adds another notable football school without losing any footprint and technically adding some households to the ACCN although WV isn’t big. Allows for historical opponent based divisions to take hold too. More rivalries played helping tv ratings.

SEC gets another new state for their footprint and network that’s a cultural fit without ripping the core nucleus of UNC/UVA/Duke/Clemson/FSU from the ACC.

Arkansas rejoins 4 SWC foes and plays in a league where former glory might be more likely to be regained. Big 12 gets a storied program with a ton of history in the SWC that is also close enough to the OK/KS schools to start up new ties there.

Or


WVU to ACC
UVA or BC to B1G. Kick Indiana to the west division
Nebraska to Big 12

Similar idea on point one and three. Now the B1G gets new markets for their network and academic fits.


In the crazy world of realignment the Arkansas route would reunite/make more frequent a ton of rivalries and really only costs you the non-UNC rivalries for NC State but sends them back with South Carolina after decades off.

Well you could send Missouri, Texas A&M and Nebraska to the Big 12 and Maryland and West Virginia to the ACC. The Big 10 and SEC would be better by being back at 12 and the Big 12 wouldn't have a silly name anymore. And the ACC would have almost the entire east coast with 16 schools.

Yeah but the thread was about one for one trades sooooo...

(08-25-2019 07:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  I think I’ll believe all the articles citing primary sources that had Miami as one of the original six targets. Never have I read Clemson was. I just read a bunch of them and many in SEC country did not see expansion as a success.

I don't care what you believe. I know what I know and if you don't believe me about Clemson ask Kaplony, he knows the truth of it on that end. There were a few articles talking about Miami but they came from Miami. The only one that came from anyone connected to the SEC came from Jackie Sherrill talking about a plan that would have taken the SEC to 20 and it specifically cited that it was a defensive plan in the event that the Big 10 had gotten interested in expansion. And yes back then they were eyeing the East Coast.

How old were you in 1990?

(08-25-2019 08:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 06:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Why would any conference not want Miami?? Take a good look at the SEC and compare how many private colleges/universities there are vs how many public schools there are and then do the same for the ACC. I'm sure Florida's president at the time remembered Miami football being on its deathbed, only to come back to life under Howard Schnellenburger. Howard had a lot of personal problems that wouldn't go over very well with SEC presidents. But without Howard, Miami really wouldn't be worth taking. That's probably why UF looked more at FSU than Miami. Alabama no doubt remembered GT's "ND of the South" flop and probably put Miami in the same category.

Also around this same time, the SEC was getting "Texas fever," and wanted the Texas public schools desperately. This is what killed Miami to the SEC.

No, Miami killed “Miami to the SEC” when they decided to join the Big East. Does anyone seriously believe the SEC preferred South Carolina to Miami in 1990?

SEC expansion was not seen as an overwhelming success at the time missing out on Texas, TAMU, FSU, and Miami. Many SEC fans downplay it, but being snubbed by the FLA schools hurt their pride.

Just no. I truly had family in on the 1990 realignment. Miami was only in a defensive list should the Big 10 make a move South. They were never in the original 4 or 6 that the SEC was willing to offer.

The six were officially at that time Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, Clemson who declined and South Carolina took their place, and an unnamed friend of Texas (Oklahoma) who was strictly contingent upon what Texas did. Texas backed out and with them OU. F.S.U. opted for the ACC. Clemson who was only ever tepid did as well. That left Broyles wanting in because he knew Texas would be left out of the rumors they were beginning to hear about joining the Big 8. South Carolina applied and were taken as #12. Texas A&M didn't have the ability to disengage from Texas at the time.

That's the long and short of it. Miami said they were offered, they were not. They were contacted. So were other schools prior to the offers going out. West Virginia applied, Virginia Tech inquired but did not apply to my knowledge. The ones in the works who we were willing to offer are those named.

A few years ago Boren claimed he was issued an invitation he was not. The SEC spoke with him to see if OU wanted to accompany A&M. Boren wanted OSU included. There was no offer. These schools and presidents make public statements all the time for their own PR. Nothing new there as it has and will still go on.

What sort of southern move would the Big Ten have made at the time?

They were interested, even back that far, in East Coast Expansion. The SEC's defensive plan if that happened was to safeguard brands that they felt would solidify the SEC's hold on the Southeast from a brand perspective.

(08-25-2019 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:00 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  WVU traded to ACC
NC State to SEC and move Mizzou to west division
Arkansas to Big 12

ACC splits into original 7 and Big East 7 divisions reuniting old rivalries. UNC Vs State is now annually in noncon. Adds another notable football school without losing any footprint and technically adding some households to the ACCN although WV isn’t big. Allows for historical opponent based divisions to take hold too. More rivalries played helping tv ratings.

SEC gets another new state for their footprint and network that’s a cultural fit without ripping the core nucleus of UNC/UVA/Duke/Clemson/FSU from the ACC.

Arkansas rejoins 4 SWC foes and plays in a league where former glory might be more likely to be regained. Big 12 gets a storied program with a ton of history in the SWC that is also close enough to the OK/KS schools to start up new ties there.

Or


WVU to ACC
UVA or BC to B1G. Kick Indiana to the west division
Nebraska to Big 12

Similar idea on point one and three. Now the B1G gets new markets for their network and academic fits.


In the crazy world of realignment the Arkansas route would reunite/make more frequent a ton of rivalries and really only costs you the non-UNC rivalries for NC State but sends them back with South Carolina after decades off.

Well you could send Missouri, Texas A&M and Nebraska to the Big 12 and Maryland and West Virginia to the ACC. The Big 10 and SEC would be better by being back at 12 and the Big 12 wouldn't have a silly name anymore. And the ACC would have almost the entire east coast with 16 schools.

This except WV won’t probably be in the ACC
Shame city state Louisville is in.
Disgraceful

(08-25-2019 09:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 07:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  I think I’ll believe all the articles citing primary sources that had Miami as one of the original six targets. Never have I read Clemson was. I just read a bunch of them and many in SEC country did not see expansion as a success.

I don't care what you believe. I know what I know and if you don't believe me about Clemson ask Kaplony, he knows the truth of it on that end. There were a few articles talking about Miami but they came from Miami. The only one that came from anyone connected to the SEC came from Jackie Sherrill talking about a plan that would have taken the SEC to 20 and it specifically cited that it was a defensive plan in the event that the Big 10 had gotten interested in expansion. And yes back then they were eyeing the East Coast.

How old were you in 1990?

Well I don’t care about your save face SEC angle. Interviews printed in newspapers and magazines take priority over good old boy rumblings when it comes to analyzing this situation accurately. You can’t cite he said she said.

The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis published an article in 09/90 stating the presidents of Miami and SC were preparing for site visits from a group of SEC officials headed by Kramer. Sounds pretty serious to me.

West Virginia to the ACC.
Louisville to the Big 12.

Better geographic fit. West Virginia plays old Big East rivals Pitt and Syracuse frequently. Louisville can establish Texas recruiting pipeline.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-25-2019 10:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:00 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  WVU traded to ACC
NC State to SEC and move Mizzou to west division
Arkansas to Big 12

ACC splits into original 7 and Big East 7 divisions reuniting old rivalries. UNC Vs State is now annually in noncon. Adds another notable football school without losing any footprint and technically adding some households to the ACCN although WV isn’t big. Allows for historical opponent based divisions to take hold too. More rivalries played helping tv ratings.

SEC gets another new state for their footprint and network that’s a cultural fit without ripping the core nucleus of UNC/UVA/Duke/Clemson/FSU from the ACC.

Arkansas rejoins 4 SWC foes and plays in a league where former glory might be more likely to be regained. Big 12 gets a storied program with a ton of history in the SWC that is also close enough to the OK/KS schools to start up new ties there.

Or


WVU to ACC
UVA or BC to B1G. Kick Indiana to the west division
Nebraska to Big 12

Similar idea on point one and three. Now the B1G gets new markets for their network and academic fits.


In the crazy world of realignment the Arkansas route would reunite/make more frequent a ton of rivalries and really only costs you the non-UNC rivalries for NC State but sends them back with South Carolina after decades off.

Well you could send Missouri, Texas A&M and Nebraska to the Big 12 and Maryland and West Virginia to the ACC. The Big 10 and SEC would be better by being back at 12 and the Big 12 wouldn't have a silly name anymore. And the ACC would have almost the entire east coast with 16 schools.

This except WV won’t probably be in the ACC
Shame city state Louisville is in.
Disgraceful

Miami to the SEC for Vanderbilt

Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

Pitt to the B1G for Maryland

Then the only scenario where West Virginia moves to the ACC:
Boston College to the B1G--
Nebraska from the B1G to the Big 12 (which should be sufficient for the Big 12 to survive as a 10 team league)
West Virginia to the ACC to replace Boston College
**at that point would the SEC be amenable to trade Missouri to the Big 12 for T.C.U.**

ACC
Syracuse, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, UVA, Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, south Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Vanderbilt.

SEC
Louisville, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama. Miss. State, Ole Miss, LSU, A&M, TCU, Arkansas, and Miami.

Big 12
Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, and Texas Tech

B1G
Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Indiana, Purdue, Ill., Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minn. and Iowa.

(08-25-2019 05:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let’s put it this way: even if Miami is terrible on the field, it still provides a school directly in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting area in the country, a huge TV market that is among the fastest growing in the country, and excellent academics.

Then, when Miami actually does play well on the field, they’re one of the top drawing teams for TV ratings out of anyone in the country.

Plus, for conference governance, this isn’t a school that pushes its weight around against the rest of the conference like Texas in the Big 12 or even Duke/UNC in the ACC. Frankly, what I just described (elite recruiting area, large TV market, excellent academics, great national TV ratings and low maintenance regarding conference governance) is basically the *perfect* school in terms of conference realignment value. You could plug Miami into an P5 conference besides the Pac-12 (only because of geography) and those conferences would be unbelievably happy.

I have zero ties to the Canes, so I have no dog in this fight, but any conference that would give up Miami for anything less than an Alabama/Ohio State-level program in return is absolutely insane.

Based on recent TV ratings, when the Canes have been good but not great in football: Miami provides well above average TV value for an ACC football team, so it was unquestionably a good move for the ACC to add them. In the Big Ten, their TV value would be roughly equivalent to Michigan State; in the SEC they'd be at about the same value level as Tennessee.

Sure - but you also add in that Miami itself brings in a top population growth center (that simply doesn’t exist in the Midwest and Northeast) and elite recruiting ground with excellent academics. We’re also talking about Miami that’s still performing below its potential. A playoff-contending Miami team is almost icing on the cake because all of the other key factors for realignment (TV market, population growth, recruiting, academics) are solidly there. Besides, the Big Ten Network getting basic carriage in Florida (or even just South Florida alone) is worth it from a TV value perspective.

Let’s put it this way: the Big Ten took Maryland and Rutgers where they provided significantly less on the national TV ratings front by comparison.

To be sure, all of the people saying that the Big Ten should trade Maryland and Rutgers for random schools are dinosaurs. Migration data shows that the top destinations for Big Ten grads besides Chicago are NYC and DC. That’s the future of the Big Ten (not adding on more slow-to-no growth small Midwestern markets). Every single trade proposed in this thread for the Big Ten leaves them MUCH worse off.

(08-26-2019 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 05:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let’s put it this way: even if Miami is terrible on the field, it still provides a school directly in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting area in the country, a huge TV market that is among the fastest growing in the country, and excellent academics.

Then, when Miami actually does play well on the field, they’re one of the top drawing teams for TV ratings out of anyone in the country.

Plus, for conference governance, this isn’t a school that pushes its weight around against the rest of the conference like Texas in the Big 12 or even Duke/UNC in the ACC. Frankly, what I just described (elite recruiting area, large TV market, excellent academics, great national TV ratings and low maintenance regarding conference governance) is basically the *perfect* school in terms of conference realignment value. You could plug Miami into an P5 conference besides the Pac-12 (only because of geography) and those conferences would be unbelievably happy.

I have zero ties to the Canes, so I have no dog in this fight, but any conference that would give up Miami for anything less than an Alabama/Ohio State-level program in return is absolutely insane.

Based on recent TV ratings, when the Canes have been good but not great in football: Miami provides well above average TV value for an ACC football team, so it was unquestionably a good move for the ACC to add them. In the Big Ten, their TV value would be roughly equivalent to Michigan State; in the SEC they'd be at about the same value level as Tennessee.

Sure - but you also add in that Miami itself brings in a top population growth center (that simply doesn’t exist in the Midwest and Northeast) and elite recruiting ground with excellent academics. We’re also talking about Miami that’s still performing below its potential. A playoff-contending Miami team is almost icing on the cake because all of the other key factors for realignment (TV market, population growth, recruiting, academics) are solidly there. Besides, the Big Ten Network getting basic carriage in Florida (or even just South Florida alone) is worth it from a TV value perspective.

Let’s put it this way: the Big Ten took Maryland and Rutgers where they provided significantly less on the national TV ratings front by comparison.

To be sure, all of the people saying that the Big Ten should trade Maryland and Rutgers for random schools are dinosaurs. Migration data shows that the top destinations for Big Ten grads besides Chicago are NYC and DC. That’s the future of the Big Ten (not adding on more slow-to-no growth small Midwestern markets). Every single trade proposed in this thread for the Big Ten leaves them MUCH worse off.

That was the plan for my trade proposal. Weaken the Big Ten and SEC a bit, strengthen the ACC and Pac, sacrifice the Big 12 to do so. Balance is healthy.

I don't believe we will ever see a grouping of all the strongest football teams in one or two conferences. I think we have to accept the reality that neither the SEC nor the B1G are going to throw any of their current members to the wolves. And each of those conferences have members who wouldn't make the cut if the only criteria were on field performance, attendance or even revenues.

I have tried to come up with a way to get both of them to 24 members, including top teams from every region in the country. The best I could come up with is 21 members each, with three divisions of seven members.

The B1G was pretty straightforward, keeping their existing divisions intact. They would simply add Washington, Oregon, the Cali Four and Colorado as a Pacific Division.

The seven additions to the SEC skim top programs from the Big 12 and ACC. Even though the Big 12 has stronger teams top to bottom than the ACC, they still only have two that move the needle for ratings - Texas and Oklahoma. I added them to a western division that includes Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU and Ole Miss.

From the ACC I placed Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, NC State and Louisville in an eastern division with Kentucky and South Carolina.

That left a southern division consisting of Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Vanderbilt.

To satisfy the Big Dogs in each of these six divisions, I would have the conferences negotiate a contract with the networks for conference games and championship tournaments only, with everybody playing an 8 game conference schedule in a 6-1-1 format. Then each member retains the broadcast rights to its OOC home games. Obviously, these would be a lot more valuable to the Oklahomas and Alabamas than they would be to the Vanderbilts and Kentuckys.

The CFP as it now exists would go away. Instead, the SEC and B1G would each have a four team championship tournament including each division champ (based only on divisional round robin games) and a wild card. In the SEC, the semifinal winners would meet in the Sugar Bowl and the losers get the Orange and Fiesta Bowl slots. The B1G semi winners meet in the Rose Bowl, and the losers also go to the Orange and Fiesta. The SEC champ plays the B1G champ in Jerry World in a bowl that is not billed as a national championship (though fans and media may claim that it is).

Without changing the NCAA structure for FBS, the end result would be essentially three subdivisions with 42 teams in the top subdivision, 38 in the next group which would include the remnants of the PAC (which would peel off the top MWC schools and BYU), B12, ACC and AAC, and 50 schools in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, Belt and Indys.

(08-26-2019 07:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  Miami to the SEC for Vanderbilt

Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

Pitt to the B1G for Maryland

Then the only scenario where West Virginia moves to the ACC:
Boston College to the B1G--
Nebraska from the B1G to the Big 12 (which should be sufficient for the Big 12 to survive as a 10 team league)
West Virginia to the ACC to replace Boston College
**at that point would the SEC be amenable to trade Missouri to the Big 12 for T.C.U.**

Nebraska and Missouri to Big 12
Swapping Louisville for West Virginia
TCU replacing Missouri
Pitt replacing Nebraska
Swapping Miami for Vanderbilt
USF replacing Pitt

Big 12 (11): Nebraska, Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Louisville, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State

Big Ten: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Pitt, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

SEC: TCU, Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

ACC: Boston College, Syracuse, West Virginia, South Florida, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State

DePaul traded for a bag of chips

(08-25-2019 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Miami was such a strange animal—lots of folks envied their success but not too many folks wanted the upstart, thug persona embracing Canes in their league. The Big East ended up with them by default when everyone else passed.

You could pin a lot against Miami back then. The culture was one thing. That they eventually brought back basketball, but hardly put into it was a big one, too.

I thought the SEC was pretty into them, but that it wasn't reciprocated. That Miami thought it wasn't a great cultural fit or something, but that you also didn't have full support from others in the conference, like UF (but UF preferring them over FSU). I don't know...probably wrong.

Miami was pretty obsessed about getting into the ACC. They hired the athletic director from Washington State to pretty much force those pleas. He even followed the ACC out to Arizona, if I'm not mistaken (?), for conference meetings to push the conference to include it. The ACC made their decision. They tapped Florida State instead.

I definitely agree that Miami would still be quite the attractive acquisition for any conference, but just knowing the backstories about how the ACC long resisted the 'Canes has always left a weird taste in the mouth about how the conference really felt/feels about them.

Like, a "what if" I've thought about: should UCF continue to stay super competitive in both football and basketball, while Miami is "meh" at best...is there the possibility UCF jumps UMFL in the pecking order of D1?

CUSA decides to go paleo and trades Rice for Perdue.

(08-26-2019 09:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 08:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Miami was such a strange animal—lots of folks envied their success but not too many folks wanted the upstart, thug persona embracing Canes in their league. The Big East ended up with them by default when everyone else passed.

You could pin a lot against Miami back then. The culture was one thing. That they eventually brought back basketball, but hardly put into it was a big one, too.

I thought the SEC was pretty into them, but that it wasn't reciprocated. That Miami thought it wasn't a great cultural fit or something, but that you also didn't have full support from others in the conference, like UF (but UF preferring them over FSU). I don't know...probably wrong.

Miami was pretty obsessed about getting into the ACC. They hired the athletic director from Washington State to pretty much force those pleas. He even followed the ACC out to Arizona, if I'm not mistaken (?), for conference meetings to push the conference to include it. The ACC made their decision. They tapped Florida State instead.

I definitely agree that Miami would still be quite the attractive acquisition for any conference, but just knowing the backstories about how the ACC long resisted the 'Canes has always left a weird taste in the mouth about how the conference really felt/feels about them.

Like, a "what if" I've thought about: should UCF continue to stay super competitive in both football and basketball, while Miami is "meh" at best...is there the possibility UCF jumps UMFL in the pecking order of D1?

If you’re asking whether UCF would jump Miami in terms of “conference realignment power”, I don’t think that would reasonably ever happen in our lifetimes. Putting aside even the on-the-field metrics and TV value, Miami is simply the type of school that university presidents will chase after. It’s an interesting juxtaposition where the old Miami image of being an outlaw cowboy football program is at odds of what it actually is as a university: a wealthy private school with solid academics that attracts as many students from the NYC corridor as it does from the state of Florida. University presidents are BIG fans of those types of institutions. To that point, the academic profile of Miami is almost a perfect match for the ACC, which certainly shows why it really didn’t ever warm up to any SEC overtures (to the extent that’s actually true).

I continuously state (and I believe conference realignment has shown) that private schools are generally underrated on this forum while non-flagship public schools are generally overrated. To paraphrase Yoda, “Size matters not.” That is, a smaller private school that is in the right market with the right academic profile will get a significant bump over a non-flagship public school that might have a massive enrollment. The Big 12 took TCU and included Tulane as a finalist in its most recent expansion analysis (but passed over schools like Memphis). The Big East didn’t want anything to do with Wichita State and VCU and it’s only breaking its private school profile for a top flagship brand name with UConn.

Sure, there’s nothing better than a massive *flagship* public university that delivers an entire state, TV market and/or recruiting area. “Flagship equivalents” like Texas A&M, Florida State, UCLA and Georgia Tech that aren’t technically flagships but have the academic and branding profile of flagships are valuable, too. No one is doubting the power of those large enrollment public flagship and flagship equivalent universities. However, there is a massive bias against directional schools in the power conference ranks and that simply isn’t ever changing. Louisville is probably the only school in the P5 that comes even close to that type of institutional profile, and even then, I’d argue it’s closer to a flagship equivalent in the state of Kentucky when it comes to branding purposes.

The bottom line is that Miami delivers a ton of value on so many metrics (academics, TV market, recruiting area) that it doesn’t even need to perform that well on-the-field to still be an extremely valuable school for conference realignment purposes. When Miami *does* perform well on-the-field, it’s one of the best TV draws out of any school anywhere. (We’re talking Notre Dame/Alabama/Ohio State-level when Miami was firing on all cylinders.) If Rutgers has shown to be valuable school for realignment purposes simply because of its location and academics, how the heck is anyone here arguing about the value of Miami with a straight face? It makes no sense. I’m continuously perplexed by it.