Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
Author Message
Statefan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,798
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 127
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #121
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
You are showing your age now
11-22-2020 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,784
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 311
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #122
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
(11-22-2020 10:53 AM)Statefan Wrote:  You are showing your age now

Maturity.
11-22-2020 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,007
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #123
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
The governor in Richmond. Not UR, gotcha.

Interesting stuff.
11-22-2020 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,788
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 768
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #124
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
(11-22-2020 10:22 AM)Statefan Wrote:  https://indyweek.com/news/orange/unc-s-s...years-ago/

What follows is a Duke’s quasi-offical stance on what happened. It appeared in the Durham NC Independent in 2012 – Read it very carefully and you will see that two schools are not mentioned and it is as if they never existed. That’s purposeful.

As recounted by historian J. Samuel Walker in his fine book ACC Basketball, an academic study of the league's first 20 years, the seven schools that chose to defect from the Southern Conference and form a new league in 1953 were motivated by two distinct sets of concerns.
On the one hand, Clemson, South Carolina and Maryland, all of which were heavily invested in football...
Ironically, UNC and State College (as NCSU was then known) were two of the strongest proponents of the bowl ban: UNC President Gordon Gray (who controlled both schools' votes) described bowl games as "a non-educational distraction for students, both players and otherwise. ... [T]hey command much spectator interest but contribute little to the underlying values of intercollegiate athletics." Wake Forest President Harold Tribble chimed in, saying, "I am in favor of doing everything we can to restore intercollegiate athletics to the status of general student activities."
This attitude was a major problem for Maryland and its president, Curley Byrd, who had an aggressive strategy to use football success to catapult the university to national prominence. Flaunting the Southern Conference ban on postseason play, Maryland and Clemson chose to play in bowl games on January 1, 1952 (Sugar and Gator, respectively). The conference responded by placing both schools on probation.
That controversy led the football-minded schools to begin considering in earnest plans to break away from the Southern Conference... Meanwhile, the so-called Big Four schools (Carolina, State, Duke, Wake) were proceeding on a quite opposite track. At least at the level of institutional leadership, all four were said to favor strong academic standards and reining in the emerging commercialism of college sports...
But these schools were equally committed to staying in the game...
Those sentiments help explain why the reform-minded Big Four would choose to join forces with the football-oriented trio of Maryland, South Carolina and Clemson. Gray was willing to relent on the question of a conference-wide ban on bowl participation, but the new ACC did ban freshman eligibility and also established the requirement that players must "be enrolled in an academic program leading to a recognized degree, and should be making normal progress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, toward the degree."

I blame Clemson, S. Carolina and Maryland for knowingly inviting 4 schools which were opposed to football to join them in the formation of the ACC (when there were clearly some good football-first alternatives available). At most, they only should've invited 2 of them to keep the majority in their favor. I also blame VT for voting to ban bowls - a stupid vote which was apparently held against them for a long time.
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020 01:22 PM by Hokie Mark.)
11-22-2020 01:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,784
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 311
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #125
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
(11-22-2020 01:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 10:22 AM)Statefan Wrote:  https://indyweek.com/news/orange/unc-s-s...years-ago/

What follows is a Duke’s quasi-offical stance on what happened. It appeared in the Durham NC Independent in 2012 – Read it very carefully and you will see that two schools are not mentioned and it is as if they never existed. That’s purposeful.

As recounted by historian J. Samuel Walker in his fine book ACC Basketball, an academic study of the league's first 20 years, the seven schools that chose to defect from the Southern Conference and form a new league in 1953 were motivated by two distinct sets of concerns.
On the one hand, Clemson, South Carolina and Maryland, all of which were heavily invested in football...
Ironically, UNC and State College (as NCSU was then known) were two of the strongest proponents of the bowl ban: UNC President Gordon Gray (who controlled both schools' votes) described bowl games as "a non-educational distraction for students, both players and otherwise. ... [T]hey command much spectator interest but contribute little to the underlying values of intercollegiate athletics." Wake Forest President Harold Tribble chimed in, saying, "I am in favor of doing everything we can to restore intercollegiate athletics to the status of general student activities."
This attitude was a major problem for Maryland and its president, Curley Byrd, who had an aggressive strategy to use football success to catapult the university to national prominence. Flaunting the Southern Conference ban on postseason play, Maryland and Clemson chose to play in bowl games on January 1, 1952 (Sugar and Gator, respectively). The conference responded by placing both schools on probation.
That controversy led the football-minded schools to begin considering in earnest plans to break away from the Southern Conference... Meanwhile, the so-called Big Four schools (Carolina, State, Duke, Wake) were proceeding on a quite opposite track. At least at the level of institutional leadership, all four were said to favor strong academic standards and reining in the emerging commercialism of college sports...
But these schools were equally committed to staying in the game...
Those sentiments help explain why the reform-minded Big Four would choose to join forces with the football-oriented trio of Maryland, South Carolina and Clemson. Gray was willing to relent on the question of a conference-wide ban on bowl participation, but the new ACC did ban freshman eligibility and also established the requirement that players must "be enrolled in an academic program leading to a recognized degree, and should be making normal progress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, toward the degree."

I blame Clemson, S. Carolina and Maryland for knowingly inviting 4 schools which were opposed to football to join them in the formation of the ACC (when there were clearly some good football-first alternatives available). At most, they only should've invited 2 of them to keep the majority in their favor. I also blame VT for voting to ban bowls - a stupid vote which was apparently held against them for a long time.

Why would you want to "blame" anybody?
11-22-2020 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,788
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 768
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #126
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
(11-22-2020 01:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 01:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 10:22 AM)Statefan Wrote:  https://indyweek.com/news/orange/unc-s-s...years-ago/

What follows is a Duke’s quasi-offical stance on what happened. It appeared in the Durham NC Independent in 2012 – Read it very carefully and you will see that two schools are not mentioned and it is as if they never existed. That’s purposeful.

As recounted by historian J. Samuel Walker in his fine book ACC Basketball, an academic study of the league's first 20 years, the seven schools that chose to defect from the Southern Conference and form a new league in 1953 were motivated by two distinct sets of concerns.
On the one hand, Clemson, South Carolina and Maryland, all of which were heavily invested in football...
Ironically, UNC and State College (as NCSU was then known) were two of the strongest proponents of the bowl ban: UNC President Gordon Gray (who controlled both schools' votes) described bowl games as "a non-educational distraction for students, both players and otherwise. ... [T]hey command much spectator interest but contribute little to the underlying values of intercollegiate athletics." Wake Forest President Harold Tribble chimed in, saying, "I am in favor of doing everything we can to restore intercollegiate athletics to the status of general student activities."
This attitude was a major problem for Maryland and its president, Curley Byrd, who had an aggressive strategy to use football success to catapult the university to national prominence. Flaunting the Southern Conference ban on postseason play, Maryland and Clemson chose to play in bowl games on January 1, 1952 (Sugar and Gator, respectively). The conference responded by placing both schools on probation.
That controversy led the football-minded schools to begin considering in earnest plans to break away from the Southern Conference... Meanwhile, the so-called Big Four schools (Carolina, State, Duke, Wake) were proceeding on a quite opposite track. At least at the level of institutional leadership, all four were said to favor strong academic standards and reining in the emerging commercialism of college sports...
But these schools were equally committed to staying in the game...
Those sentiments help explain why the reform-minded Big Four would choose to join forces with the football-oriented trio of Maryland, South Carolina and Clemson. Gray was willing to relent on the question of a conference-wide ban on bowl participation, but the new ACC did ban freshman eligibility and also established the requirement that players must "be enrolled in an academic program leading to a recognized degree, and should be making normal progress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, toward the degree."

I blame Clemson, S. Carolina and Maryland for knowingly inviting 4 schools which were opposed to football to join them in the formation of the ACC (when there were clearly some good football-first alternatives available). At most, they only should've invited 2 of them to keep the majority in their favor. I also blame VT for voting to ban bowls - a stupid vote which was apparently held against them for a long time.

Why would you want to "blame" anybody?

Because the ACC spent nearly 50 years on the wrong path and is now locked into a low-paying tv contract. It lost 2 founding members for good. It grabbed some expansion candidates but missed on others. It even has divisions which relegate some of the highest-tv-rating, biggest attendance match-ups to once every 6 years.
11-22-2020 04:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,784
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 311
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #127
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
(11-22-2020 04:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 01:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 01:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(11-22-2020 10:22 AM)Statefan Wrote:  https://indyweek.com/news/orange/unc-s-s...years-ago/

What follows is a Duke’s quasi-offical stance on what happened. It appeared in the Durham NC Independent in 2012 – Read it very carefully and you will see that two schools are not mentioned and it is as if they never existed. That’s purposeful.

As recounted by historian J. Samuel Walker in his fine book ACC Basketball, an academic study of the league's first 20 years, the seven schools that chose to defect from the Southern Conference and form a new league in 1953 were motivated by two distinct sets of concerns.
On the one hand, Clemson, South Carolina and Maryland, all of which were heavily invested in football...
Ironically, UNC and State College (as NCSU was then known) were two of the strongest proponents of the bowl ban: UNC President Gordon Gray (who controlled both schools' votes) described bowl games as "a non-educational distraction for students, both players and otherwise. ... [T]hey command much spectator interest but contribute little to the underlying values of intercollegiate athletics." Wake Forest President Harold Tribble chimed in, saying, "I am in favor of doing everything we can to restore intercollegiate athletics to the status of general student activities."
This attitude was a major problem for Maryland and its president, Curley Byrd, who had an aggressive strategy to use football success to catapult the university to national prominence. Flaunting the Southern Conference ban on postseason play, Maryland and Clemson chose to play in bowl games on January 1, 1952 (Sugar and Gator, respectively). The conference responded by placing both schools on probation.
That controversy led the football-minded schools to begin considering in earnest plans to break away from the Southern Conference... Meanwhile, the so-called Big Four schools (Carolina, State, Duke, Wake) were proceeding on a quite opposite track. At least at the level of institutional leadership, all four were said to favor strong academic standards and reining in the emerging commercialism of college sports...
But these schools were equally committed to staying in the game...
Those sentiments help explain why the reform-minded Big Four would choose to join forces with the football-oriented trio of Maryland, South Carolina and Clemson. Gray was willing to relent on the question of a conference-wide ban on bowl participation, but the new ACC did ban freshman eligibility and also established the requirement that players must "be enrolled in an academic program leading to a recognized degree, and should be making normal progress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, toward the degree."

I blame Clemson, S. Carolina and Maryland for knowingly inviting 4 schools which were opposed to football to join them in the formation of the ACC (when there were clearly some good football-first alternatives available). At most, they only should've invited 2 of them to keep the majority in their favor. I also blame VT for voting to ban bowls - a stupid vote which was apparently held against them for a long time.

Why would you want to "blame" anybody?

Because the ACC spent nearly 50 years on the wrong path and is now locked into a low-paying tv contract. It lost 2 founding members for good. It grabbed some expansion candidates but missed on others. It even has divisions which relegate some of the highest-tv-rating, biggest attendance match-ups to once every 6 years.

Wrong path?
The ACC's problem was that they were ahead of their time.
When Florida State joined, the ACC was paying more than any other conference and already had their own well established TV network.
South Carolina left in the early 70's and tried to re-join twice.
When Swofford negotiated with ESPN after flirting with FOX, many (including guru Omni Carrier, Omni Orange, OrangeDude) on the original Big East version of this board, couldn't believe he as able to get so much out of ESPN. A year later after other contracts were negotiated the contract lost it's luster and the ACC was behind the 8 ball. Again, being first hurt the ACC.
What other expansion candidates did the ACC lose out on? Rutgers?
11-22-2020 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,798
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 127
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #128
RE: Scheduling the ACC if Notre Dame were to join
Hokie, you need to stop allowing Duke to play you.

There is no ACC without Duke, that's why they were in on it with MD and Clemson. WF/UNC/Duke/NC State were not "invited by" MD, SC, and Clemson. MD, Duke, Clemson, and SC invited UNC and NC State and NC State and UNC prevailed on Duke for WF. That's how you get to 7. Curley Byrd had UVa in his pocket before the first meeting and somehow UVa was a voting member by the time of the first in person meeting at Sedgefield.

Duke always wants clean hands. Duke LOVED big time football. They fell out of love and needed to reform it when they could not keep it all white. When the ACC was formed, every school loved and placed football first except NC State.

1970's and 1990's revisionist history is bull ****. It's not until 1962 and Duke's 800 SAT rule that the ACC as a major football player fell down. It was almost all about race.

Be clear Hokie, MD, Clemson, and Duke kicked you out. UVa made sure you stayed out. But every single ACC addition after Virginia, was made with football in mind. GT, FSU, Miami, VT, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, Louisville. That MD and or Duke usually opposed any expansion is not something the rest of us could always overcome.
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020 08:21 PM by Statefan.)
11-22-2020 08:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 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.