A while back, I read about how Gene Corrigan and the ACC were completely caught off guard when the B1G invited Penn State to their league. It was then that the ACC knew they needed to expand beyond their then roster of eight schools. They looked at both Syracuse and FSU and of course went with FSU.

What if the ACC was aggressive in the late 80's and was the one catching the Big Ten off guard, inviting Penn State and still inviting FSU?

(Maybe an even better question is why in the world didn't the ACC do this, but that could be a whole other discussion.)

It would have been interesting what the ACC would have gone from there. Would Penn State have requested a couple of eastern schools to go with them into the league, like Syracuse, Pitt, or Rutgers?

Penn St just by themselves would probably be an odd cultural fit—a Northeastern football school and a Southern basketball conference. Maybe if they brought a few friends like Pitt and WVU it might have seemed more natural.

They still probably look south the NJ recruiting line would be OK the Western PA might suffer. People always retire down South so there's a connection

Back then, UMD didn’t want PSU (or others) for numerous reasons. A shift in leadership, and now the two are under a common banner. So, I doubt Maryland wants to leave the ACC because they were overruled by others who want PSU.

Pitt’s getting that Big Ten spot immediately after. And not because PSU doesn’t lobby for Pitt to the ACC (they wouldn’t back then), but because the two didn’t want to be tied together then. Pitt probably would have picked up the phone to call out to the Chicago area and ask “got room?”

Pitt got along better with the eastern independents than PSU did, spare Rutgers and Temple. If Pitt goes to the Big Ten, does it change anything for Syracuse down the line, or maybe Rutgers, too? The “bond” Rutgers had with PSU helped them out to get them where they are now. Without PSU in there, is the Big Ten listening to Rutgers?

With Pitt in, is PSU never a thought to the Big Ten?

With PSU in the ACC, does it bode better for the Big East overall? I have to believe PSU blocks some of the chances of schools that eventually got there. And where else could those guys go? Like BC or even one of Virginia Tech or Miami?

Having both PSU and FSU would have completely changed the ACC.

The ACC in the 1980s was really a country club. Basketball was a major source of revenue, the ACC had the best brands and talent in basketball, and the ACC tournament was a gold mine as the schools were able to leverage their donors. There was opposition to expanding even though athletic leaders (such as Corrigan) understood that football would soon drive the bus.

The football first schools (PSU, FSU, Clemson, GTech and likely Maryland) would have been able to push football-based expansion sooner. Duke, UNC and UVA have been very conservative in embracing football revenue. Miami, Norte Dame and Syracuse would have then been their next targets for a 12 team conference with a championship game.

what if the pink clouds in the late afternoon skies are made of cotton candy.

(09-04-2020 02:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Having both PSU and FSU would have completely changed the ACC.

The ACC in the 1980s was really a country club. Basketball was a major source of revenue, the ACC had the best brands and talent in basketball, and the ACC tournament was a gold mine as the schools were able to leverage their donors. There was opposition to expanding even though athletic leaders (such as Corrigan) understood that football would soon drive the bus.

The football first schools (PSU, FSU, Clemson, GTech and likely Maryland) would have been able to push football-based expansion sooner. Duke, UNC and UVA have been very conservative in embracing football revenue. Miami, Norte Dame and Syracuse would have then been their next targets for a 12 team conference with a championship game.

MD was not pushing anything in Athletics regarding the ACC after the spring of 86. That's when Bias died and MD gutted both the basketball and football programs.

From the moment the ACC adds Penn State, the SEC target package does not change with Texas and TAMU but I suspect the SEC would have targeted FSU much more heavily and without the condescension. The result being the SEC adding Arkansas and FSU at that time. The Big 10 adds Pitt.

The Big 10 is at 11.
The ACC is at 9.
The SEC is at 12.

Needing to go to 12 for a football championship game the ACC targets with be ND, Miami, and Syracuse. Once again politics will result in only Miami being the new addition with South Carolina and VT again playing politics.

The B10 will make the same mistake it made again and go for Nebraska, giving Colorado, TAMU, and Mizzou reason to flee, when they should go for Syracuse.

The SEC again adds TAMU and Mizzou. Colorado still goes to the P12. The ACC then goes after ND, Syracuse, and BC. Getting at least 2.

Now if Kirwan and Loh pull the same ****, there will be no rush to add Louisville.

The B10 is in a worse position on the trade between Pitt and PSU and likely add MD and Rutgers again for TV money.

The point is that even if you start with a different team and conference first, the results are going to be structurally similar - The ACC will get three of FSU, PSU, Miami, and ND. The SEC or the Big 10 will get one.

It’s not to late to call Penn State to ask if they are happy with their current situation. Now this will need to take place soon for the ACC has a football season to play, and will not have the time to persuade them unlike BigTen does with their decision not to play football.

Penn State is not leaving the Big Ten for the ACC. That would be an insane decision on their part. The only potential exception would be if they came with Notre Dame. If something like that were in the works, I could see it happening. However, I don’t think even that would make a lot of sense for them. Also, I don’t think Notre Dame is ever joining any conference, so I just don’t think that scenario is remotely realistic.

PSU in the 1990 ACC would only have 1 other North Eastern Member in Maryland. Still better than the Big10 but only slightly better.

I think if PSU was in the ACC in the 80's, they still would have gone to the Big10 in the 90's unless the ACC added some more northern members. If the ACC added BC, Cuse, Pitt, and WVU, then they'd probably stay.

North - BC, Cuse, PSU, Md, Pitt, WVU, UVA
South - UNC Duke NCSU Wake, GT, Clemson, FSU

As a whole, I think the current ACC looks better with Miami, VT and Louisville.

(09-04-2020 09:47 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 02:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Having both PSU and FSU would have completely changed the ACC.

The ACC in the 1980s was really a country club. Basketball was a major source of revenue, the ACC had the best brands and talent in basketball, and the ACC tournament was a gold mine as the schools were able to leverage their donors. There was opposition to expanding even though athletic leaders (such as Corrigan) understood that football would soon drive the bus.

The football first schools (PSU, FSU, Clemson, GTech and likely Maryland) would have been able to push football-based expansion sooner. Duke, UNC and UVA have been very conservative in embracing football revenue. Miami, Norte Dame and Syracuse would have then been their next targets for a 12 team conference with a championship game.

MD was not pushing anything in Athletics regarding the ACC after the spring of 86. That's when Bias died and MD gutted both the basketball and football programs.

From the moment the ACC adds Penn State, the SEC target package does not change with Texas and TAMU but I suspect the SEC would have targeted FSU much more heavily and without the condescension. The result being the SEC adding Arkansas and FSU at that time. The Big 10 adds Pitt.

The Big 10 is at 11.
The ACC is at 9.
The SEC is at 12.

Needing to go to 12 for a football championship game the ACC targets with be ND, Miami, and Syracuse. Once again politics will result in only Miami being the new addition with South Carolina and VT again playing politics.

The B10 will make the same mistake it made again and go for Nebraska, giving Colorado, TAMU, and Mizzou reason to flee, when they should go for Syracuse.

The SEC again adds TAMU and Mizzou. Colorado still goes to the P12. The ACC then goes after ND, Syracuse, and BC. Getting at least 2.

Now if Kirwan and Loh pull the same ****, there will be no rush to add Louisville.

The B10 is in a worse position on the trade between Pitt and PSU and likely add MD and Rutgers again for TV money.

The point is that even if you start with a different team and conference first, the results are going to be structurally similar - The ACC will get three of FSU, PSU, Miami, and ND. The SEC or the Big 10 will get one.

Per the OP, in this theoretical the ACC was actually proactive and invites both PSU and FSU in the late 1980s. The SEC does not have the opportunity to woo FSU...therefore, the SEC still goes with Arkansas and South Carolina to start its CCG. Regardless of the dysfunctionality at College Park, the combination of PSU and FSU is more than enough to wrestle operational control away from the country club.

Twenty years ago, when the ACC is ready to have a CCG, Syracuse and Miami are easily recruited...without the politics of Mark Warner, PSU and FSU are no longer the geographic outliers in the conference. A north-south split provides PSU with a nice path to the CCG: Syracuse, PSU, MD, UVA, WF & Miami versus UNC, NCS, DU, Clemson, GT & FSU (UVA-UNC and UM-FSU have permanent annual crossover). The ACC would obviously had made a play for ND, but the Irish are unlikely to have had interest.

Ten years ago (when the last round of media contracts were being negotiated) the ACC would likely have had two options. If the ACC needed to go after TV markets (to drive its dedicated network’s revenue), then Rutgers and BC would be the likely adds. PSU is happy because it has built a true northeast division with itself at the center. If the ACC could go after brands, then two of Pitt, VT and WVU would be the targets. PSU is still happy because it gets to enhance its natural geographic rivalry with Pitt in this less likely scenario. Regardless of the expansion criteria, the ACC is always accommodating PSU. There is no reason for PSU to be tempted to leave for the BIG, because PSU is actually the alpha program within the ACC.


PS - As a sidelight, in my alternate scenario of TV market based expansion in 2010...
1) ACC can expand to 14 with Rutgers and BC
2) SEC can expand to 14 with TAM and VT (much better cultural and geographic fits)
3) BIG also expands to 14 with UNL, MO, KS and OU (making Gee a fortune-teller; having balanced East v West divisions [OSU, MI, MSU, Ind, Pur, IL & NW v MN, WI, IA, UNL, MO, KS & OU]; while enhancing football and leaving itself open to a UT-Austin and/or ND expansion in the future)
4) B12 and UT-Austin solidify their group by bringing in Pitt, WVU and Louisville...and providing an accommodating home for a partial ND

(09-06-2020 11:02 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  PS - As a sidelight, in my alternate scenario of TV market based expansion in 2010...
1) ACC can expand to 14 with Rutgers and BC
2) SEC can expand to 14 with TAM and VT (much better cultural and geographic fits)
3) BIG also expands to 14 with UNL, MO, KS and OU (making Gee a fortune-teller; having a solid East v West divisions [OSU, MI, MSU, Ind, Pur, IL & NW v MN, WI, IA, UNL, MO, KS & OU])
4) B12 and UT-Austin solidify their group by bringing in Pitt, WVU and Louisville...and providing an accommodating home for a partial ND

I actually would have liked this better than what we wound up with in real life, although part of me thinks Virginia Tech would have been in the SEC in 1992, and South Carolina would have been in the Big East before leaving for the SEC. I think Notre Dame would likely still be a partial member of the ACC rather than the Big 12.

(09-06-2020 11:02 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 09:47 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 02:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Having both PSU and FSU would have completely changed the ACC.

The ACC in the 1980s was really a country club. Basketball was a major source of revenue, the ACC had the best brands and talent in basketball, and the ACC tournament was a gold mine as the schools were able to leverage their donors. There was opposition to expanding even though athletic leaders (such as Corrigan) understood that football would soon drive the bus.

The football first schools (PSU, FSU, Clemson, GTech and likely Maryland) would have been able to push football-based expansion sooner. Duke, UNC and UVA have been very conservative in embracing football revenue. Miami, Norte Dame and Syracuse would have then been their next targets for a 12 team conference with a championship game.

MD was not pushing anything in Athletics regarding the ACC after the spring of 86. That's when Bias died and MD gutted both the basketball and football programs.

From the moment the ACC adds Penn State, the SEC target package does not change with Texas and TAMU but I suspect the SEC would have targeted FSU much more heavily and without the condescension. The result being the SEC adding Arkansas and FSU at that time. The Big 10 adds Pitt.

The Big 10 is at 11.
The ACC is at 9.
The SEC is at 12.

Needing to go to 12 for a football championship game the ACC targets with be ND, Miami, and Syracuse. Once again politics will result in only Miami being the new addition with South Carolina and VT again playing politics.

The B10 will make the same mistake it made again and go for Nebraska, giving Colorado, TAMU, and Mizzou reason to flee, when they should go for Syracuse.

The SEC again adds TAMU and Mizzou. Colorado still goes to the P12. The ACC then goes after ND, Syracuse, and BC. Getting at least 2.

Now if Kirwan and Loh pull the same ****, there will be no rush to add Louisville.

The B10 is in a worse position on the trade between Pitt and PSU and likely add MD and Rutgers again for TV money.

The point is that even if you start with a different team and conference first, the results are going to be structurally similar - The ACC will get three of FSU, PSU, Miami, and ND. The SEC or the Big 10 will get one.

Per the OP, in this theoretical the ACC was actually proactive and invites both PSU and FSU in the late 1980s. The SEC does not have the opportunity to woo FSU...therefore, the SEC still goes with Arkansas and South Carolina to start its CCG. Regardless of the dysfunctionality at College Park, the combination of PSU and FSU is more than enough to wrestle operational control away from the country club.

Twenty years ago, when the ACC is ready to have a CCG, Syracuse and Miami are easily recruited...without the politics of Mark Warner, PSU and FSU are no longer the geographic outliers in the conference. A north-south split provides PSU with a nice path to the CCG: Syracuse, PSU, MD, UVA, WF & Miami versus UNC, NCS, DU, Clemson, GT & FSU (UVA-UNC and UM-FSU have permanent annual crossover). The ACC would obviously had made a play for ND, but the Irish are unlikely to have had interest.

Ten years ago (when the last round of media contracts were being negotiated) the ACC would likely have had two options. If the ACC needed to go after TV markets (to drive its dedicated network’s revenue), then Rutgers and BC would be the likely adds. PSU is happy because it has built a true northeast division with itself at the center. If the ACC could go after brands, then two of Pitt, VT and WVU would be the targets. PSU is still happy because it gets to enhance its natural geographic rivalry with Pitt in this less likely scenario. Regardless of the expansion criteria, the ACC is always accommodating PSU. There is no reason for PSU to be tempted to leave for the BIG, because PSU is actually the alpha program within the ACC.


PS - As a sidelight, in my alternate scenario of TV market based expansion in 2010...
1) ACC can expand to 14 with Rutgers and BC
2) SEC can expand to 14 with TAM and VT (much better cultural and geographic fits)
3) BIG also expands to 14 with UNL, MO, KS and OU (making Gee a fortune-teller; having balanced East v West divisions [OSU, MI, MSU, Ind, Pur, IL & NW v MN, WI, IA, UNL, MO, KS & OU]; while enhancing football and leaving itself open to a UT-Austin and/or ND expansion in the future)
4) B12 and UT-Austin solidify their group by bringing in Pitt, WVU and Louisville...and providing an accommodating home for a partial ND

An ACC expansion to 10 with FSU and PSU at the same time would change the SEC's and the B10's calculus. I think the practical effect would be to drive VT to the SEC along with Miami as well as Pitt to the B10. Without Pitt and PSU there is no Big East football. Miami, VT, and SC would be looking to the ACC or SEC for security and when it came time to decide between the three of them and Arkansas, remember there is no other suitor for Arkansas at that time. The politics in the State of Florida would support Miami in the SEC with Florida. FSU then has two annual ooc games that they would want to keep.

When the Big 12 forms a few years later Arkansas is in that group instead of the SEC.

When the ACC is looking to go to 12, the initial prospects are ND, Syracuse, and BC. Now the power play comes from SC and again UNC and Duke will desire SC but with an ACC basketball ticket penalty, unlike UVa, Clemson will support SC. The deciding vote on a UNC/Duke power play will come from Penn State. They will want two of ND, Syracuse, and BC. ND is not ready. That means Syracuse or BC as 12th but since Pitt is in the B10, the B10 has a quick choice to make - Nebraska or Syracuse. They B10 does not have to keep Pitt happy like PSU so they let Syracuse go to the ACC and they take Nebraska as their 12th.

Everyone is now at 12 now except for the B10 and the only question is does Arkansas' presence in the B12, keep Nebraska from bolting to the B10 when ND again turns them down?

If Nebraska bolts, I suspect that Arkansas and TAMU make a deal to the SEC.

That leaves ND, and BC in the east. A Maryland that likely will not move and the B10 looking at the midwest. I suspect they go for Mizzou and Oklahoma. Colorado goes to the P12. And the ACC adds BC and ND.

For the ACC the changes are SC and PSU instead of Miami, VT, and Pitt.
For the B10 the changes are OU, Pitt, and Nebraska instead of PSU, Rutgers, and MD.
For the SEC the changes are Miami and VT for Mizzou and SC.

Again the B12 is hurt the worst, but they always will be.
SC is 11th.

WE MAY HAVE THIS

BIG EAST
NORTH
Boston College
UConn
Syracuse
Army^
Rutgers
USF

SOUTH
Temple
Villanova
Navy^
Georgetown
West Virginia
UCF

**Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall Butler, Creighton, DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, Dayton, Saint Louis**

ACC
NORTH
Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
North Carolina
Duke
Wake Forest

SOUTH
NC State
ECU
Clemson
South Carolina
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

BIG TEN
EAST
Buffalo
Pitt
Ohio State
Cincinnati
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame

WEST
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa

SEC
EAST
Kentucky
Louisville
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
Auburn

WEST
Alabama
Memphis
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Southern Miss
Tulane
LSU

BIG 14
WEST
Nebraska
Wyoming
Colorado
Colorado State
Air Force
BYU
Utah

EAST
Iowa State
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Tulsa

SWC
SOUTH
Arkansas
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Houston
Rice
Texas A&M
Texas

WEST
Baylor
TCU
SMU
Texas Tech
UTEP
New Mexico
NM State

PAC-14
NORTH
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Boise State
Cal
Stanford

SOUTH
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
Hawaii
San Diego State
UNLV


Pitt going to the Big Ten and Penn State going to the ACC actually allows for more larger regional conferences as everyone is not stepping on each other toes. This is way better conferences in my opinion when it comes to fan engagement and getting crowds at college football games.

(09-08-2020 03:19 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  WE MAY HAVE THIS

I like your thinking here, with most conferences at the same number of schools. Realistically though, there are a number of problems:

A huge Big East like that is improbable. 16 was already pushing it. They'd have fallen apart into football-first and basketball-first schools as they did in our timeline.

ECU is not going to the ACC as long as UNC is there.

Some very questionable Big Ten adds, including Buffalo and Cincinnati.

Also some very questionable SEC adds, including Southern Miss and (a returning) Tulane.

OU and OSU aren't letting Tulsa into the same league as them.

A surviving SWC is unlikely, but if it did survive with UT as a member, then NMSU, ULL, and La Tech would most certainly not be members.

The Pac would not willingly add Boise, Hawaii, SDSU, or UNLV.

Adding Penn State to the ACC would make the ACC a stronger football conference and may have kept the Big Ten at 10 teams for longer.

We have to remember that Clemson was down. Florida State was a football juggernaut.

Having Penn State as a member of the ACC would help the ACC with bowl contracts.

The pushback from the ACC would be- 1. Weakening the basketball conference. 2. Round-Robin play may be too much for basketball scheduling. 3. Out-of-Conference football scheduling may be diminished.

Penn State has what Florida State didn't really have- The academic profile of an ACC school.

Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
NC State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

(09-11-2020 11:08 AM)chess Wrote:  Adding Penn State to the ACC would make the ACC a stronger football conference and may have kept the Big Ten at 10 teams for longer.

We have to remember that Clemson was down. Florida State was a football juggernaut.

Having Penn State as a member of the ACC would help the ACC with bowl contracts.

The pushback from the ACC would be- 1. Weakening the basketball conference. 2. Round-Robin play may be too much for basketball scheduling. 3. Out-of-Conference football scheduling may be diminished.

Penn State has what Florida State didn't really have- The academic profile of an ACC school.

Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
NC State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

These days, Florida State fits into the ACC academically just fine.

I'm surprised Bryce Jordan didn't reach out to the ACC. He had a PhD from North Carolina and taught at Maryland for nearly a decade.

Hypothetically speaking, if Florida St and Penn St are ACC members 9 and 10, who are members 11 and 12?

I’m guessing your list of candidates are:

BC
Cuse
Pitt
Miami
VT
WVU
SC

(09-11-2020 12:04 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I'm surprised Bryce Jordan didn't reach out to the ACC. He had a PhD from North Carolina and taught at Maryland for nearly a decade.

IIRC, the ACC stuff came up and died down before the Big Ten stuff really ramped up. And it helped with Penn State that there was a Penn State guy at Illinois who was the one helping to bring PSU to the conference.

I get the impression Jordan was quite active in getting the school settled into a conference. It just happened that the Big Ten was the most receptive at that moment.