Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Research Triangle to the SEC
Author Message
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,932
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 09:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 08:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There are also cultural reasons for those schools to want to be in the ACC - the self anointed snobbish gentility of Tobacco Road and the upper-South east of the Appalachians. But power is a big part of it too.

Quo, we prefer to call that a "Tidewater" thing.

Oh i get that. "Tidewater" is a cleaner brand name than ones that remind the northern schools the core ACC strives to identify with that ACC wealth was founded on slavery and tobacco.

Completely understandable. 04-cheers

By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 08:10 PM by XLance.)
03-19-2020 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,637
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #42
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 08:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 09:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 08:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There are also cultural reasons for those schools to want to be in the ACC - the self anointed snobbish gentility of Tobacco Road and the upper-South east of the Appalachians. But power is a big part of it too.

Quo, we prefer to call that a "Tidewater" thing.

Oh i get that. "Tidewater" is a cleaner brand name than ones that remind the northern schools the core ACC strives to identify with that ACC wealth was founded on slavery and tobacco.

Completely understandable. 04-cheers

By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.

From Wiki, numbers from US Census data:

"By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population."

That's a fair number of slaves. And it also was a peak, i.e., in 1840, the slave population of NC was 245,000.

From the census map, it looks like slave populations in North Carolina and Virginia were heavily concentrated in the "Tidewater" area, the areas closest to the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay. The western part of NC and the southwestern part of Virginia, the mountainous parts that border on Kentucky and Tennessee, much less so:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_...bution.pdf
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 09:25 PM by quo vadis.)
03-19-2020 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,115
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

For this to happen, both Maryland and South Carolina would have to give up their dreams of becoming a major player in college football. I imagine Clemson would want to remain a football-first school.
03-19-2020 10:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,310
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 247
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #44
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

Agreed. Almost all of the expansion since 1990 has been "mercenary", basically forced by the need for this football team or that market, and not cultural. It's been driven by the need to ensure full-AQ parity in football with the other power conferences. But if the ACC had its druthers, meaning was guaranteed Power status in football formally and in terms of media money, it would prefer to be the pre-1990 conference, with a welcome-back to founding member South Carolina.

The one exception, surprisingly to some, would be VT. The ACC was kind of strong-armed into adding VT, but VT has proven to be a very nice cultural fit, and of course it is in the middle of the core geography as well.

Yes, Virginia Tech feels like a core member who should’ve co-founded the conference. Rare example of realignment being excellent for CFB.
03-20-2020 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,492
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 110
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #45
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 10:33 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  [quote='XLance' pid='16743644' dateline='1584623247']

In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

[
For this to happen, both Maryland and South Carolina would have to give up their dreams of becoming a major player in college football. I imagine Clemson would want to remain a football-first school.

Dunno about Maryland, but I'm pretty sure SC is never going to give up on it's dream of becoming a major player in college football.
03-20-2020 01:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #46
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 10:33 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

For this to happen, both Maryland and South Carolina would have to give up their dreams of becoming a major player in college football. I imagine Clemson would want to remain a football-first school.

The two schools are one state away but could the University of North Carolina and Clemson be any more different? It's not just their primary sport, UNC is in the Raleigh/Durham area, Clemson is in the middle of nowhere (I mean the town is literally called Clemson). Clemson's not bad academically (USNWR #70) but Carolina's one of the top public schools in the country (#29, tied for 5th for public schools).

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran...top-public

Clemson should really be an SEC school, not an ACC school.

My criteria:

If you're good in college basketball, you should be in the ACC. If you're not as good, you should be in the SEC. Florida and Kentucky should be in the ACC. Clemson and Virginia Tech should be in the SEC.

If you're in a large city/state, you should be in the ACC. If you're in a small city/state, you should be in the SEC. South Carolina is the smallest state by population currently in the ACC. They'd fit right at home with Alabama and Mississippi in the SEC. In the ACC, you've got three schools in the Triangle, Miami, Boston (College), Louisville, Pittsburgh. In the SEC, you got Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Baton Rouge, Oxford, Athens, Columbia. Which group would Clemson fit in more with?

If your college girls wear dresses to football games, you belong in the SEC. Anyone not from the South thinks that stupid. It's just one sign of being "Southern". Accents can be another. I'd be willing to bet Clemson, SC and Clemson is more "Southern" than UNC is. I'll bet they're more Southern than the University of Florida is or Florida State is.

Academics. I know it's stereotypical, but the ACC has the higher ranked schools and that's shown consistently not just in the USNWR rankings but others according to other academic rankings in the academics thread. Clemson is near the bottom of the ACC in academics, it's a fact. Now they'd be at the top of the SEC so saying they belong in the SEC isn't accurate, they'd really belong somewhere in between the two. Florida meanwhile is clearly an ACC school academically. So is Georgia.

In a bizarro world where the ACC were able to raid the SEC,

Florida no doubt would be their first choice. They're a winner demographically, academically, bring a great basketball team and a great football team, and my guess is that they aren't too southern although years in the SEC might have corrupted their girls into forcing them to wear dresses to football games, hopefully they'll go back to normal in the ACC.

Georgia has great academics. They're also a large state. Athens has over 100,000 people and is a little over an hour away from Atlanta (although of course the ACC has Atlanta covered). They'd flunk the Southern test and the men's basketball test but I think the ACC can live with those shortcomings.

Kentucky would pass the basketball test. Lexington is a fairly large city. Kentucky isn't that large a state. It would be great to have Kentucky and Louisville together. They're probably northern enough that they won't be too Southern. The academics would be a problem but then again the ACC already has Louisville.

Obviously the ACC would take Alabama, despite their academics, small town/state (Tuscaloosa's not that small), lack of men's basketball, Southerness, who cares? And obviously Alabama would never go unless the revenue stream changed direction. But they'd be a terrible fit in the ACC (or the Big Ten, but again we'll take them and it's not like the Big Ten doesn't have a ton of small towns like Champaign Urbana and University Park). I don't know if that's a complement or an insult to Alabama. Alabama is an SEC school. North Carolina is an ACC school. Is Clemson an ACC school or an SEC school? You tell me.
03-20-2020 06:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,293
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 218
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #47
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 10:33 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

For this to happen, both Maryland and South Carolina would have to give up their dreams of becoming a major player in college football. I imagine Clemson would want to remain a football-first school.

Maryland did that when they joined the Big Ten.
03-20-2020 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,100
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 373
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #48
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
The Big 10 and SEC obviously both want UNC. They're the biggest prize. But the only way they'll get UNC to leave is to pick off enough of the ACC to make it unattractive to UNC anymore.

SEC picks off Clemson and FSU. Big 10 picks off Syracuse.

This makes Tobacco Road start to quake. I bet UNC chooses the Big 10 over the SEC in the end, but they'd have to split up from NC State to make this happen.

In the end: Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, and UNC go to the Big 10. Clemson, FSU, NC State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC.
03-20-2020 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
UNC isn’t a prize. They are a good academic program that’s never accomplished anything in football and located in a state that is over saturated with P5 football. Honestly, neither the SEC nor the Big Ten need them.

The expansion prizes are ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson. Anyone else from the ACC or Big 12 is filler.
03-20-2020 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,932
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-19-2020 09:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 09:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 08:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There are also cultural reasons for those schools to want to be in the ACC - the self anointed snobbish gentility of Tobacco Road and the upper-South east of the Appalachians. But power is a big part of it too.

Quo, we prefer to call that a "Tidewater" thing.

Oh i get that. "Tidewater" is a cleaner brand name than ones that remind the northern schools the core ACC strives to identify with that ACC wealth was founded on slavery and tobacco.

Completely understandable. 04-cheers

By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.

From Wiki, numbers from US Census data:

"By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population."

That's a fair number of slaves. And it also was a peak, i.e., in 1840, the slave population of NC was 245,000.

From the census map, it looks like slave populations in North Carolina and Virginia were heavily concentrated in the "Tidewater" area, the areas closest to the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay. The western part of NC and the southwestern part of Virginia, the mountainous parts that border on Kentucky and Tennessee, much less so:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_...bution.pdf


The slave population in North Carolina in 1830 was 245,000 (same number as 1840) according to the US census and didn't grow during the ten years between 1830 and 1840 because a number of those persons were relocated to vacated Indian lands.
There were approx 20,000 free colored persons living in North Carolina in 1830, 23,000 in 1840 and 35,000 in 1860. Those numbers were even higher in Virginia.
The US census in 1850 stopped separating slave and free black populations, and only reported the number (NC) as Blacks (316,000 in 1850 and 361,000 in 1860).

BTW in 1860 a referendum on secession was defeated in North Carolina. The Unionist advocated staying in the Union but recognized the Constitutional Right of a State to secede. That movement was led by Zebulon Vance who defended the Union up until the time that Lincoln called for troops after Fort Sumter, when he changed sides and joined the Confederate Army.
Vance was elected Governor in 1862 and again in 1864 and often opposed the actions of Jefferson Davis which directly led to North Carolina being under-represented in the Confederate government and on the battlefield (North Carolina supplied 20% of Confederate Troops, had the most deaths ((40,000)) but had very few Field Commanders).
03-20-2020 08:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #51
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 08:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  UNC isn’t a prize. They are a good academic program that’s never accomplished anything in football and located in a state that is over saturated with P5 football. Honestly, neither the SEC nor the Big Ten need them.

The expansion prizes are ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson. Anyone else from the ACC or Big 12 is filler.

You're thinking like a football fan and not an academic president or an athletic director. You're also forgetting about a certain sport called men's basketball which does make a ton of money, not as much as football but still a lot of money. The Big Ten hasn't won a national championship since 2002 if you count Maryland and 2000 if you don't. I'll be humiliated if the Pathetic 12 or a mid major wins one before the Big Ten does. I'd be embarrassed if someone from the Big 12 not named Kansas or someone from the SEC not named Kentucky or Florida does. If Clemson was mediocre in football they'd be irrelevant. If they had 20 years of Illinois level football, people out west wouldn't even know what state Clemson was in. Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening with Dabo Swinney there. But when it comes to conference expansion, you can't just have one criteria unless you want another Nebraska.

If Jim Delany were still commissioner when the ACC's GOR expired and there was any interest in poaching ACC schools, I guarantee UNC would be called before Clemson. With Kevin Warren (or his successor), I'm not as sure but there are other qualities that North Carolina has that Clemson doesn't. Also, don't forget the SEC will also want Clemson and I'd guess Clemson would choose the SEC over the Big Ten if given the choice.

I'd imagine every ACC school that wants to jump ship come 2036 will likely choose the best offer on the table financially but if close will choose the conference that it fits better in academically and culturally and I think Captain Bearcat's list is pretty accurate as to which schools would go where.

>
In the end: Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, and UNC go to the Big 10. Clemson, FSU, NC State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC.
>

I think NC State wouldn't mind splitting from Carolina/Duke. They seem to be a third wheel in the ACC and moving to the SEC would allow them to establish their own identity like Texas A&M is now. Who knows, maybe they can compete for men's basketball championships.
03-20-2020 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,637
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #52
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 09:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Quo, we prefer to call that a "Tidewater" thing.

Oh i get that. "Tidewater" is a cleaner brand name than ones that remind the northern schools the core ACC strives to identify with that ACC wealth was founded on slavery and tobacco.

Completely understandable. 04-cheers

By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.

From Wiki, numbers from US Census data:

"By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population."

That's a fair number of slaves. And it also was a peak, i.e., in 1840, the slave population of NC was 245,000.

From the census map, it looks like slave populations in North Carolina and Virginia were heavily concentrated in the "Tidewater" area, the areas closest to the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay. The western part of NC and the southwestern part of Virginia, the mountainous parts that border on Kentucky and Tennessee, much less so:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_...bution.pdf


The slave population in North Carolina in 1830 was 245,000 (same number as 1840) according to the US census and didn't grow during the ten years between 1830 and 1840 because a number of those persons were relocated to vacated Indian lands.
There were approx 20,000 free colored persons living in North Carolina in 1830, 23,000 in 1840 and 35,000 in 1860. Those numbers were even higher in Virginia.
The US census in 1850 stopped separating slave and free black populations, and only reported the number (NC) as Blacks (316,000 in 1850 and 361,000 in 1860).

The Census (see link below) says that there were about 31,000 free colored persons in NC in 1860. Subtract that from 361,000 total and you have way more slaves than in 1840:

".... the 1860 census showed only 144 free Negroes in Arkansas, 773 in Mississippi, and 932 in Florida, while in Maryland there were 83,942; in Virginia, 58,042; in North Carolina, 30,463; and in Louisiana, 18,647."

The map I posted itself - which refers to slaves and is a US government document - makes it clear that slavery was extremely rife in NC on the dawn of the civil war. As rife as in Mississippi? No. But there's just no two ways about it.

And ironically, just as in Virginia, the whites who tended to oppose slavery and wanted to remain in the union tended to be those in the western mountainous regions of the state, whereas the Tidewater areas with the big plantations were staunchly in favor of the Confederacy. Of course, it is those mountainous areas that the ACC schools have traditionally looked down on as "backwards", "hayseeds", etc. like the attitude towards West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia because it did not want to secede from the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Negro
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 08:52 AM by quo vadis.)
03-20-2020 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
schmolik— football drives the bus to the tune of 80% of most P5’s media rights value. UNC is undeniably a basketball powerhouse but that doesn’t move the economic needle a whole lot. Acquiring Kansas solves the Big Ten’s basketball woes.

UNC is the type of school that’s probably going to try to leverage inclusion for both Duke and UVA to any conference that courts them. That’s way to much to give up to land a basketball school. Unless we see conference’s go beyond 18 members UNC isn’t even in the conversation because the ROI isn’t there.
03-20-2020 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,447
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 214
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #54
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-18-2020 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would make sense for the SEC to take the trio of Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson and in turn send Kentucky, Tennessee and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
The southern borders of Tennessee and North Carolina seem to be the dividing line of really good football development. Basketball is really the best option now for Tennessee and it always has been for Kentucky and Vanderbilt.
04-cheers

03-puke03-puke03-puke Back away from the pipe XL.
03-20-2020 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,323
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 143
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 01:08 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:33 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  [quote='XLance' pid='16743644' dateline='1584623247']

In all seriousness, the ideal conference for most of the ACC would consist of:
Maryland, UVA, Va. Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina and Georgia Tech.

[
For this to happen, both Maryland and South Carolina would have to give up their dreams of becoming a major player in college football. I imagine Clemson would want to remain a football-first school.

Dunno about Maryland, but I'm pretty sure SC is never going to give up on it's dream of becoming a major player in college football.

We sure as hell don't know how to do it but it won't stop us from trying.
03-20-2020 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,323
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 143
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 08:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-20-2020 08:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  UNC isn’t a prize. They are a good academic program that’s never accomplished anything in football and located in a state that is over saturated with P5 football. Honestly, neither the SEC nor the Big Ten need them.

The expansion prizes are ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson. Anyone else from the ACC or Big 12 is filler.

You're thinking like a football fan and not an academic president or an athletic director. You're also forgetting about a certain sport called men's basketball which does make a ton of money, not as much as football but still a lot of money. The Big Ten hasn't won a national championship since 2002 if you count Maryland and 2000 if you don't. I'll be humiliated if the Pathetic 12 or a mid major wins one before the Big Ten does. I'd be embarrassed if someone from the Big 12 not named Kansas or someone from the SEC not named Kentucky or Florida does. If Clemson was mediocre in football they'd be irrelevant. If they had 20 years of Illinois level football, people out west wouldn't even know what state Clemson was in. Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening with Dabo Swinney there. But when it comes to conference expansion, you can't just have one criteria unless you want another Nebraska.

If Jim Delany were still commissioner when the ACC's GOR expired and there was any interest in poaching ACC schools, I guarantee UNC would be called before Clemson. With Kevin Warren (or his successor), I'm not as sure but there are other qualities that North Carolina has that Clemson doesn't. Also, don't forget the SEC will also want Clemson and I'd guess Clemson would choose the SEC over the Big Ten if given the choice.

I'd imagine every ACC school that wants to jump ship come 2036 will likely choose the best offer on the table financially but if close will choose the conference that it fits better in academically and culturally and I think Captain Bearcat's list is pretty accurate as to which schools would go where.

>
In the end: Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, and UNC go to the Big 10. Clemson, FSU, NC State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC.
>

I think NC State wouldn't mind splitting from Carolina/Duke. They seem to be a third wheel in the ACC and moving to the SEC would allow them to establish their own identity like Texas A&M is now. Who knows, maybe they can compete for men's basketball championships.

Trying to imagine Clemson in the Big Ten is pretty entertaining. Might as well put Notre Dame in the SEC and Arizona St in the ACC
03-20-2020 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,932
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-20-2020 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Oh i get that. "Tidewater" is a cleaner brand name than ones that remind the northern schools the core ACC strives to identify with that ACC wealth was founded on slavery and tobacco.

Completely understandable. 04-cheers

By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.

From Wiki, numbers from US Census data:

"By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population."

That's a fair number of slaves. And it also was a peak, i.e., in 1840, the slave population of NC was 245,000.

From the census map, it looks like slave populations in North Carolina and Virginia were heavily concentrated in the "Tidewater" area, the areas closest to the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay. The western part of NC and the southwestern part of Virginia, the mountainous parts that border on Kentucky and Tennessee, much less so:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_...bution.pdf


The slave population in North Carolina in 1830 was 245,000 (same number as 1840) according to the US census and didn't grow during the ten years between 1830 and 1840 because a number of those persons were relocated to vacated Indian lands.
There were approx 20,000 free colored persons living in North Carolina in 1830, 23,000 in 1840 and 35,000 in 1860. Those numbers were even higher in Virginia.
The US census in 1850 stopped separating slave and free black populations, and only reported the number (NC) as Blacks (316,000 in 1850 and 361,000 in 1860).

The Census (see link below) says that there were about 31,000 free colored persons in NC in 1860. Subtract that from 361,000 total and you have way more slaves than in 1840:

".... the 1860 census showed only 144 free Negroes in Arkansas, 773 in Mississippi, and 932 in Florida, while in Maryland there were 83,942; in Virginia, 58,042; in North Carolina, 30,463; and in Louisiana, 18,647."

The map I posted itself - which refers to slaves and is a US government document - makes it clear that slavery was extremely rife in NC on the dawn of the civil war. As rife as in Mississippi? No. But there's just no two ways about it.

And ironically, just as in Virginia, the whites who tended to oppose slavery and wanted to remain in the union tended to be those in the western mountainous regions of the state, whereas the Tidewater areas with the big plantations were staunchly in favor of the Confederacy. Of course, it is those mountainous areas that the ACC schools have traditionally looked down on as "backwards", "hayseeds", etc. like the attitude towards West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia because it did not want to secede from the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Negro


There weren't very many "big plantations" in North Carolina.

In 1786 North Carolina again banned slave importation; it increased the prohibitive duty on imported Africans, which was later repealed in 1790. Prohibitive laws became more specific in 1794, barring the importation not only of slaves but also of indentured servants by "land or water routes." One year later, legislators passed the "Act against West Indian Slaves," which expressly prevented the importation of slaves by individuals emigrating from the West Indies. White slaveholders in North Carolina made up 31 percent of the population in 1790 and 27.7 percent in 1860. Only 2 percent of these slaveholders owned more than 50 slaves, and only 3 percent attained the rank of planter (owning 20 or more slaves). In 1860 the vast majority of slaveholders (70.8 percent) owned fewer than 10 slaves.

https://www.ncpedia.org/slavery

BTW the United States banned the importation of slaves in 1807.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 12:33 PM by XLance.)
03-20-2020 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,932
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 11:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would make sense for the SEC to take the trio of Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson and in turn send Kentucky, Tennessee and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
The southern borders of Tennessee and North Carolina seem to be the dividing line of really good football development. Basketball is really the best option now for Tennessee and it always has been for Kentucky and Vanderbilt.
04-cheers

03-puke03-puke03-puke Back away from the pipe XL.

You could blame that one on a resident SEC poster. He wrote that Tennessee and Kentucky were too far north to ever be relevant in SEC football again.04-cheers
If the ACC didn't need more football gravitas to boost it's perception in that sport, Vanderbilt would fit nicely. Tennessee and Kentucky would be a different story.
Sorry, I didn't mean to churn your stomach.
03-21-2020 07:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,293
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 218
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #59
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 09:00 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  schmolik— football drives the bus to the tune of 80% of most P5’s media rights value. UNC is undeniably a basketball powerhouse but that doesn’t move the economic needle a whole lot. Acquiring Kansas solves the Big Ten’s basketball woes.

UNC is the type of school that’s probably going to try to leverage inclusion for both Duke and UVA to any conference that courts them. That’s way to much to give up to land a basketball school. Unless we see conference’s go beyond 18 members UNC isn’t even in the conversation because the ROI isn’t there.

More fan speak. UNC was courted by the Big Ten last round and said “no thanks”. Kansas wasn’t, otherwise they’d be there.
03-21-2020 08:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,637
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: Research Triangle to the SEC
(03-20-2020 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-20-2020 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-20-2020 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 08:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  By the early 1840's slavery was on life support in the upper south.
Once Andrew Jackson got the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830, which led to the Trail of Tears, there was a mass transfer of slaves out of the upper south into the areas where the Indians were removed from (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi) because they were no longer needed in the "Tidewater".
It does not take an army of workers to prime and cure tobacco.

From Wiki, numbers from US Census data:

"By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population."

That's a fair number of slaves. And it also was a peak, i.e., in 1840, the slave population of NC was 245,000.

From the census map, it looks like slave populations in North Carolina and Virginia were heavily concentrated in the "Tidewater" area, the areas closest to the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay. The western part of NC and the southwestern part of Virginia, the mountainous parts that border on Kentucky and Tennessee, much less so:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_...bution.pdf


The slave population in North Carolina in 1830 was 245,000 (same number as 1840) according to the US census and didn't grow during the ten years between 1830 and 1840 because a number of those persons were relocated to vacated Indian lands.
There were approx 20,000 free colored persons living in North Carolina in 1830, 23,000 in 1840 and 35,000 in 1860. Those numbers were even higher in Virginia.
The US census in 1850 stopped separating slave and free black populations, and only reported the number (NC) as Blacks (316,000 in 1850 and 361,000 in 1860).

The Census (see link below) says that there were about 31,000 free colored persons in NC in 1860. Subtract that from 361,000 total and you have way more slaves than in 1840:

".... the 1860 census showed only 144 free Negroes in Arkansas, 773 in Mississippi, and 932 in Florida, while in Maryland there were 83,942; in Virginia, 58,042; in North Carolina, 30,463; and in Louisiana, 18,647."

The map I posted itself - which refers to slaves and is a US government document - makes it clear that slavery was extremely rife in NC on the dawn of the civil war. As rife as in Mississippi? No. But there's just no two ways about it.

And ironically, just as in Virginia, the whites who tended to oppose slavery and wanted to remain in the union tended to be those in the western mountainous regions of the state, whereas the Tidewater areas with the big plantations were staunchly in favor of the Confederacy. Of course, it is those mountainous areas that the ACC schools have traditionally looked down on as "backwards", "hayseeds", etc. like the attitude towards West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia because it did not want to secede from the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Negro


There weren't very many "big plantations" in North Carolina.

In 1786 North Carolina again banned slave importation; it increased the prohibitive duty on imported Africans, which was later repealed in 1790. Prohibitive laws became more specific in 1794, barring the importation not only of slaves but also of indentured servants by "land or water routes." One year later, legislators passed the "Act against West Indian Slaves," which expressly prevented the importation of slaves by individuals emigrating from the West Indies. White slaveholders in North Carolina made up 31 percent of the population in 1790 and 27.7 percent in 1860. Only 2 percent of these slaveholders owned more than 50 slaves, and only 3 percent attained the rank of planter (owning 20 or more slaves). In 1860 the vast majority of slaveholders (70.8 percent) owned fewer than 10 slaves.

https://www.ncpedia.org/slavery

BTW the United States banned the importation of slaves in 1807.

That's interesting. FWIW, I never claimed there were tons of big plantations in NC. By definition, big plantations are relatively rare anywhere, just like billionaires are.

But none of that changes the basic facts about slavery in NC that I described in the previous posts. Of course, nobody's hands are clean on that, as slavery existed in the north as well for almost as long as it did in the south. E.g., there were slaves in New York for over 200 years, the last ones weren't freed until 1827.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2020 09:29 AM by quo vadis.)
03-21-2020 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.