(09-16-2020 01:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m inclined to believe that UVA’s vote was needed to get Miami into the league or else VT would not have jumped both BC and Syracuse in priority.

Everything I’ve ever read cites UNC and Duke as the anti-expansion parties.

NC St jumps in to vote no on BC to try and stall to get ND in the mix (not sure why they thought they would land them).

VT would never have jumped from #4 to #2 in the list if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to get them in so Miami would get the votes.

I still maintain that if someone would have taken Syracuse and BC in that realignment cycle there’s a real good chance ND picks the ACC or Big Ten as their football home.

Can you list the facts that support this?

I ask because I believe that nothing at all that happened then would have caused ND to abandon independence at that time.

Let’s walk through what college football’s landscape would look like:

Penn St, Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, BC, VT, and Miami are all in BCS conferences and every BCS conference is playing at least 8 conference games. The PAC was playing 9—the enlarged Big Ten and ACC could very well follow that trend. Indy scheduling in that landscape becomes a lot harder.

WVU, Temple, UConn, Navy, and Army would be the only Indy schools out there looking for games and who’s to say that some of them wind up in C-USA or the MAC.

At that point, the ability to get a high profile schedule together mounts enough pressure that ND likely has to choose a conference.

(09-16-2020 04:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m inclined to believe that UVA’s vote was needed to get Miami into the league or else VT would not have jumped both BC and Syracuse in priority.

Everything I’ve ever read cites UNC and Duke as the anti-expansion parties.

NC St jumps in to vote no on BC to try and stall to get ND in the mix (not sure why they thought they would land them).

VT would never have jumped from #4 to #2 in the list if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to get them in so Miami would get the votes.

I still maintain that if someone would have taken Syracuse and BC in that realignment cycle there’s a real good chance ND picks the ACC or Big Ten as their football home.

Can you list the facts that support this?

I ask because I believe that nothing at all that happened then would have caused ND to abandon independence at that time.

Let’s walk through what college football’s landscape would look like:

Penn St, Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, BC, VT, and Miami are all in BCS conferences and every BCS conference is playing at least 8 conference games. The PAC was playing 9—the enlarged Big Ten and ACC could very well follow that trend. Indy scheduling in that landscape becomes a lot harder.

WVU, Temple, UConn, Navy, and Army would be the only Indy schools out there looking for games and who’s to say that some of them wind up in C-USA or the MAC.

At that point, the ability to get a high profile schedule together mounts enough pressure that ND likely has to choose a conference.

I think that ND would have been able to craft a good indy schedule.

We are talking 2003, correct?

Here is ND's schedule that year:



WASHINGTON ST

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN ST

PURDUE

PITTSBURGH

USC

BOSTON COLLEGE

FLORIDA STATE

NAVY

BYU

STANFORD

SYRACUSE


Which teams do you contend would drop off because of your scenario?

We could then see how many games would need to be replaced.

(09-16-2020 10:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 04:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m inclined to believe that UVA’s vote was needed to get Miami into the league or else VT would not have jumped both BC and Syracuse in priority.

Everything I’ve ever read cites UNC and Duke as the anti-expansion parties.

NC St jumps in to vote no on BC to try and stall to get ND in the mix (not sure why they thought they would land them).

VT would never have jumped from #4 to #2 in the list if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to get them in so Miami would get the votes.

I still maintain that if someone would have taken Syracuse and BC in that realignment cycle there’s a real good chance ND picks the ACC or Big Ten as their football home.

Can you list the facts that support this?

I ask because I believe that nothing at all that happened then would have caused ND to abandon independence at that time.

Let’s walk through what college football’s landscape would look like:

Penn St, Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, BC, VT, and Miami are all in BCS conferences and every BCS conference is playing at least 8 conference games. The PAC was playing 9—the enlarged Big Ten and ACC could very well follow that trend. Indy scheduling in that landscape becomes a lot harder.

WVU, Temple, UConn, Navy, and Army would be the only Indy schools out there looking for games and who’s to say that some of them wind up in C-USA or the MAC.

At that point, the ability to get a high profile schedule together mounts enough pressure that ND likely has to choose a conference.

I think that ND would have been able to craft a good indy schedule.

We are talking 2003, correct?

Here is ND's schedule that year:



WASHINGTON ST

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN ST

PURDUE

PITTSBURGH

USC

BOSTON COLLEGE

FLORIDA STATE

NAVY

BYU

STANFORD

SYRACUSE


Which teams do you contend would drop off because of your scenario?

We could then see how many games would need to be replaced.

If the Big Ten tightens scheduling availability Mich, Mich St, Purdue, Syracuse, and Pitt might all fall off. If the ACC does too that’s FSU and BC.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not advocating for freezing out ND, why I’m really pushing for is for their to be a conference alignment where most everyone ND wants to play is in the same league and it just makes sense to join them.

Back then, I really think it could have been the Big Ten. Today I think ND’s goals are more closely aligned with the ACC and with an 8 game schedule and pod scheduling you could make it work and keep USC, Navy, a rent-a-victim, and a big profile game on the OOC schedule.

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

After the ACC got to 11, unfortunately ESPN's influence forced them to take Boston College (market) to get to 12 a year later.
The prudent move at that point (for football) should have been to add Pitt and forget the northeast entirely.
It was ESPN that wanted a position in the NE corridor (two of the three metro areas ((Boston and Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia)) leaving the New York market if the B1G dared). We know that Maryland was the weak link and when the B1G made their move east, it had to be with at least two of the three metro areas.
Now we have BC, a great school with really nice people and Syracuse in an area that most of the ACC can not identify with.

Just think how much better off we would be if (even at 14) the ACC was:

Pitt, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Miami.

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss. St. LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M.

and The Big 12 at:
Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas (and at some point the possible return of Colorado).

Of course this leaves the original B1G with the addition of Penn State and if necessary; Boston College, Syracuse and Rutgers.

Even if you leave South Carolina in the SEC and Louisville in the ACC, which makes equally good sense, these alignments are better than what we have evolved into. The only thing better; would be if Missouri actually returned to the Big 12 and was replaced in the SEC by TCU (which would give the SEC access to the two largest markets in Texas) and Missouri a return home.

(09-20-2020 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

After the ACC got to 11, unfortunately ESPN's influence forced them to take Boston College (market) to get to 12 a year later.
The prudent move at that point (for football) should have been to add Pitt and forget the northeast entirely.
It was ESPN that wanted a position in the NE corridor (two of the three metro areas ((Boston and Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia)) leaving the New York market if the B1G dared). We know that Maryland was the weak link and when the B1G made their move east, it had to be with at least two of the three metro areas.
Now we have BC, a great school with really nice people and Syracuse in an area that most of the ACC can not identify with.

Just think how much better off we would be if (even at 14) the ACC was:

Pitt, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Miami.

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss. St. LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M.

and The Big 12 at:
Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas (and at some point the possible return of Colorado).

Of course this leaves the original B1G with the addition of Penn State and if necessary; Boston College, Syracuse and Rutgers.

Even if you leave South Carolina in the SEC and Louisville in the ACC, which makes equally good sense, these alignments are better than what we have evolved into. The only thing better; would be if Missouri actually returned to the Big 12 and was replaced in the SEC by TCU (which would give the SEC access to the two largest markets in Texas) and Missouri a return home.

XLance
Completely agree about BC. Love the school, their academics, Boston is great, and their commitment to football is unquestionable. Nevertheless, I felt that culturally and geographically their inclusion somewhat transformed the ACC into an ESPN made for TV property. Miami could be justified because of their strong ties to FSU and their elite status as a football power...but BC in 2005 was a stretch.

Personally, I never thought that the Terrapins were a weak link...they were just as core to the conference as UNC or UVA, maybe more so than Clemson or Duke. If Pitt had been interested in joining the ACC in 2005 and ACC leaders were more respectful of the importance of culture and geography, then Pitt would have resulted in a more cohesive expansion. At that point, the gradual growth into the northeast would have made more sense and Maryland would be seen as central to the ACC’s future options.

The 2010 expansion candidates would have been: BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville and Norte Dame. The Irish still don’t want to go all in. ESPN would be seeking TV markets...making Syracuse and BC their top choices. I could see the country-club, academic-bloc (e.g., Duke, UNC, UVA, etc.) aligning with ESPN. But a strong Deep South bloc led by FSU and Clemson preferring the additions of football-friendlier WVU and Louisville...remember in this scenario, FSU and Miami were still at their peak in terms of football prowess. Maryland, Pitt and VT are really the decision-makers on the final expansion schools. At this point, Syracuse and West Virginia would be the most likely result.

Division alignments would have been:
At 12 teams...MIA, GT, UNC, DU, UVA & VT versus FSU, CU, NCS, WF, MD & Pitt (listed in order of permanent cross-overs)
Given that Miami and FSU were still at their football peak (and assuming the Terps wanted to re-establish more traditional rivalries), at 14 teams...MIA, GT, UNC, DU, UVA, MD & Cuse versus FSU, CU, NCS, WF, VT, WVU & Pitt

(09-20-2020 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

After the ACC got to 11, unfortunately ESPN's influence forced them to take Boston College (market) to get to 12 a year later.
The prudent move at that point (for football) should have been to add Pitt and forget the northeast entirely.
It was ESPN that wanted a position in the NE corridor (two of the three metro areas ((Boston and Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia)) leaving the New York market if the B1G dared). We know that Maryland was the weak link and when the B1G made their move east, it had to be with at least two of the three metro areas.
Now we have BC, a great school with really nice people and Syracuse in an area that most of the ACC can not identify with.

Just think how much better off we would be if (even at 14) the ACC was:

Pitt, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Miami.

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss. St. LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M.

and The Big 12 at:
Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas (and at some point the possible return of Colorado).

Of course this leaves the original B1G with the addition of Penn State and if necessary; Boston College, Syracuse and Rutgers.

Even if you leave South Carolina in the SEC and Louisville in the ACC, which makes equally good sense, these alignments are better than what we have evolved into. The only thing better; would be if Missouri actually returned to the Big 12 and was replaced in the SEC by TCU (which would give the SEC access to the two largest markets in Texas) and Missouri a return home.

XLance
Completely agree about BC. Love the school, their academics, Boston is great, and their commitment to football is unquestionable. Nevertheless, I felt that culturally and geographically their inclusion somewhat transformed the ACC into an ESPN made for TV property. Miami could be justified because of their strong ties to FSU and their elite status as a football power...but BC in 2005 was a stretch.

Personally, I never thought that the Terrapins were a weak link...they were just as core to the conference as UNC or UVA, maybe more so than Clemson or Duke. If Pitt had been interested in joining the ACC in 2005 and ACC leaders were more respectful of the importance of culture and geography, then Pitt would have resulted in a more cohesive expansion. At that point, the gradual growth into the northeast would have made more sense and Maryland would be seen as central to the ACC’s future options.

The 2010 expansion candidates would have been: BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville and Norte Dame. The Irish still don’t want to go all in. ESPN would be seeking TV markets...making Syracuse and BC their top choices. I could see the country-club, academic-bloc (e.g., Duke, UNC, UVA, etc.) aligning with ESPN. But a strong Deep South bloc led by FSU and Clemson preferring the additions of football-friendlier WVU and Louisville...remember in this scenario, FSU and Miami were still at their peak in terms of football prowess. Maryland, Pitt and VT are really the decision-makers on the final expansion schools. At this point, Syracuse and West Virginia would be the most likely result.

Division alignments would have been:
At 12 teams...MIA, GT, UNC, DU, UVA & VT versus FSU, CU, NCS, WF, MD & Pitt (listed in order of permanent cross-overs)
Given that Miami and FSU were still at their football peak (and assuming the Terps wanted to re-establish more traditional rivalries), at 14 teams...MIA, GT, UNC, DU, UVA, MD & Cuse versus FSU, CU, NCS, WF, VT, WVU & Pitt

They were the weak link which is why the B1G was able to pick them off. Their weakness was internal. The Maryland athletic department never recovered after they dumped all of the blame on Lefty and forced him out. It was also the year that Bobby Ross left Maryland to go to Georgia Tech after posting a (24-5-1 conference record, 39-19-1 overall, 5 years).

Securing the NE corridor was a goal of ESPN, not the ACC. Even with all of their shortcomings West Virginia paired with either South Carolina (for culture) or Louisville (for basketball) would make the ACC a much better moneymaking conference than with the current additions of Boston College and Syracuse.

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

The smartest move for the B1G would have been to add Nebraska, Missouri and West Virginia. to get to 14 in one swoop (thinking that the long term goal was to get to 16).
It forces the ACC to choose and likely Rutgers would still available if they want them later. The cash starved Maryland would still be the weak link and would still sell out for 30 pieces of silver if the B1G needed them also.
We now realize that 16 is too many and no conference wants to go there. Even what the ACC has is more than is comfortable with the current rules.

(09-25-2020 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  We now realize that 16 is too many and no conference wants to go there. Even what the ACC has is more than is comfortable with the current rules.

Why is 16 too many? I think this year will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the division round-robin rule is the real problem.

(09-25-2020 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

The smartest move for the B1G would have been to add Nebraska, Missouri and West Virginia. to get to 14 in one swoop (thinking that the long term goal was to get to 16).
It forces the ACC to choose and likely Rutgers would still available if they want them later. The cash starved Maryland would still be the weak link and would still sell out for 30 pieces of silver if the B1G needed them also.
We now realize that 16 is too many and no conference wants to go there. Even what the ACC has is more than is comfortable with the current rules.

Like it or not, the Big Ten was and will never invite West Virginia. I highly doubt the ACC will as well. Academics matter and academic presidents are usually the ones calling the shots. West Virginia isn't just stupid, they're lower in the US News & World Rankings than BOTH Mississippi schools! Louisville's pretty dumb but they're not that dumb!

And people here act like West Virginia is this big football power. They've been mediocre in football lately. In the Big 12, they're a perennial bowl team but nothing to write home about, basically a middle of the pack .500 team. The only way they're different from the Oklahoma States, Kansas States, and Iowa States in the Big 12 is their location. They're all irrelevant schools kissing Oklahoma's and Texas's butts (well they would be if Texas could get their act together) in football and Kansas's butt in men's basketball.

(09-19-2020 04:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-19-2020 12:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The late 80s, 90s, and early 00s were great years for Florida St and Miami. Those programs were beasts and uniting them in the ACC in 2004 was supposed to usher in a new era of ACC dominance in college football.

What if that experiment had gone better? What if it was the ACC that was tearing things up in the late BCS era and into the playoff era? What does the power dynamic look like among the P5? Does it alter any expansion moves? (The one that immediately comes to mind is Maryland if all is well in ACC land)

Here’s a terrifying idea: does a strong ACC go on the offensive and pursue higher profile targets for expansion?

If FSU and Miami had continued having dominant teams (post the 2005 expansion), then the biggest difference would have been TV payouts. The ACC would be getting media contracts that would be closer to the BIG and SEC. Also, the ACCN would have started 5 years earlier. The reputation and depth of ACC football would obviously be dramatically better.

Specifically,
No reason to expect that Swafford wouldn’t have made the boneheaded 2008 TV/Raycom provision. Pitt and Syracuse are still the logical expansion candidates to re-open the contract payout provisions. ND probably has to provide at least 6 games to align with the ACC (makes scheduling more balanced and stronger, but it doesn’t change ND’s preference for independence). Maryland leaders loose their fig leaf rationale for jumping to the BIG (keeps the ACC more geographically compact and cohesive, but loses the strength of Louisville sports). The ACC would actually have more leverage than the SEC in renegotiating TV rights. ESPN would value ACC football more, and they would want access to both tier 1 and 2...as well as rapidly creating an ACCN.

So Maryland stays in the ACC. Does the Big Ten still go for Rutgers and a 14th school? Maybe looking west makes more sense? Do they make that realization before Missouri becomes unavailable?

I’m inclined to think the Big Ten still fumbles the Missouri situation. If they do go to 14 I think it’s Rutgers and Kansas but they may just sit at 12.

If ACC revenue is closer to the BIG, then Maryland likely doesn’t jump.

To get to 14, the BIG could have done any combination of two universities from Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers. Missouri should have been the no-brainer as the 13th pick...AAU, mid-sized market, solid overall athletics, and a passion to join the BIG. Solidifying their east coast footprint, expanding TV markets (NYC), and protecting PSU (now that the ACC had fully entered the northeast) would always make Rutgers a contender for the 14th team. The combination of Missouri and Rutgers would have resulted in a simpler east versus west divisional alignment for the BIG.

WVU and Louisville still likely move to the P5 via SEC #14 (WVU) and B12 #10 (Louisville).

These alternate conferences would all be more geographically compact, and slightly more culturally aligned.