(08-27-2019 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Divisionless however is not how this measure should pass. What should be put forth is that each P conference have sole discretion for how they will be constituted. That could mean divisionless, 2 divisions, 3 divisions, or 4 divisions. That's a proposal that will allow for the future.

That is it in a nutshell. This shouldn't be about divisionless. It should be about each conference's right to determine what makes the most sense for them.

(08-28-2019 08:29 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Divisionless however is not how this measure should pass. What should be put forth is that each P conference have sole discretion for how they will be constituted. That could mean divisionless, 2 divisions, 3 divisions, or 4 divisions. That's a proposal that will allow for the future.

That is it in a nutshell. This shouldn't be about divisionless. It should be about each conference's right to determine what makes the most sense for them.

I'm not sure I would call it a "right" and I'm not sure it's a good idea but it appears that there is a ground swell for conference self to determine structure.

(08-25-2019 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The odd thing is that the ACC resisted Miami for so long and finally took them when the Canes were still a relevant and consistent competitor. They haven’t looked the same since, and who knows if they ever will be again. This era would never tolerate the Miami teams and antics of the past (it was partially why the ACC wanted nothing to do with them; a NCAA investigation or punishment just waiting to happen), but what is the trajectory of the current program?

Was it worth it?

The ACC took Boston College in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Virginia Tech at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Miami in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Louisville at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Syracuse near the peak of its hoops relevance.

Might the problem not be with the school, rather with the conference? I mean look there is a common denominator for each of these situations.

ESPN
The ACC would have, on it's own, been a ten team conference (Syracuse, Md. UVa, Carolina, State, Wake, Duke, Clemson, GT, FSU). A stubborn Syracuse left the conference at nine.
Consultants later suggested the nine add Boston College, Miami and (again) Syracuse.
The ACC got BC, Miami and VT.
ESPN then suggested Pitt and Syracuse and the ACC picked up ND along the way.

The common denominator is ESPN and efforts to to stick a reluctant Syracuse (loss of Top Dog status) into the ACC.

(08-25-2019 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The odd thing is that the ACC resisted Miami for so long and finally took them when the Canes were still a relevant and consistent competitor. They haven’t looked the same since, and who knows if they ever will be again. This era would never tolerate the Miami teams and antics of the past (it was partially why the ACC wanted nothing to do with them; a NCAA investigation or punishment just waiting to happen), but what is the trajectory of the current program?

Was it worth it?

The ACC took Boston College in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Virginia Tech at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Miami in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Louisville at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Syracuse near the peak of its hoops relevance.

Might the problem not be with the school, rather with the conference? I mean look there is a common denominator for each of these situations.

Coming back to this, I don't disagree. And each one of those have an interesting story of need. Virginia politics forced VT into inclusion, creating a weird scenario between BC and Syracuse. Miami finally got its ticket stamped, but, yikes, what a journey to get there. And Louisville has Maryland and football schools to thank.

ACC has done some weird things. A lot of context to what they've done.

(Meaning, that in the end, everything got to be where it wanted to be in the ACC, but the paths were not straight or clear cut. It winds up looking like, in the group, with that context, that the ACC wasn't fully in love with who they picked up, and jettison in the future. They won't, but, ACC expansion has never looked "slam dunk." A lot of different opinions within their ranks.)

Florida State was a slam dunk. Miami was too. VT and Syracuse (the original choice) were not far removed from the Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb years so even if they were not slam dunks, they were solid additions.

Miami was supposed to take the ACC to another level. They were supposed to contend for the BCS title every year or at least represent the ACC in the Orange Bowl. Most people think Nebraska hasn’t lived to the expectations in their new conference but I think Miami is that school.

Pitt is the school that should do better given their history, location, conference and recruiting area.

(08-29-2019 12:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Florida State was a slam dunk. Miami was too. VT and Syracuse (the original choice) were not far removed from the Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb years so even if they were not slam dunks, they were solid additions.

Miami was supposed to take the ACC to another level. They were supposed to contend for the BCS title every year or at least represent the ACC in the Orange Bowl. Most people think Nebraska hasn’t lived to the expectations in their new conference but I think Miami is that school.

Pitt is the school that should do better given their history, location, conference and recruiting area.

Yes, Florida State was a slam dunk. However, I think the context of that decision, given it was deliberately over Miami, diminished the importance and impact the Miami addition had. I'd also add that the way the state of Virginia interceded into the ACC expansion matter, that expansion was, at the very least, compromised.

Miami, Cuse, and BC were the chasers. Two out of three isn't bad, and while Miami was the priority move, the whole thing was a mess. Turned out fine in the end, though.

(08-29-2019 12:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Florida State was a slam dunk. Miami was too. VT and Syracuse (the original choice) were not far removed from the Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb years so even if they were not slam dunks, they were solid additions.

Miami was supposed to take the ACC to another level. They were supposed to contend for the BCS title every year or at least represent the ACC in the Orange Bowl. Most people think Nebraska hasn’t lived to the expectations in their new conference but I think Miami is that school.

Pitt is the school that should do better given their history, location, conference and recruiting area.

The original Syracuse approach was before/at the same time as the ACC's contact with Florida State which was several years before Donovan McNabb's time at Syracuse.