(06-26-2014 09:29 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Why would NC State oppose UConn? NC State is certainly not a real football school. When you're good at nothing, you're not really anything centric.

Why? It's called business - I know you have it even at Greenville or did it wash away the last time the Tar River flooded after Hurricane Floyd?

2012:

School - FB Revenue - FB Expenses = Money Supporting Non-Revenue

Clemson - $41 million - $20 million = $21 million to Non-Revenue
NC State - $32 million - $18 million = $14 million to Non-Revenue
East Carolina - $10 million - 9 million = $1 million to Non-Revenue

source: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Now in NC State's case we also net about $11 million off basketball, Clemson doesn't do near that well in BB. They make net about $2 million. You netted $600,000 in the reporting year.

By comparison UNC netted $12 million off basketball and Duke $10.5 million and UNC netted $15 million off football and Duke just $6.5 million. Remember this net, not gross.

Every football game gate is important at Clemson, and NC State, and VT, and FSU in order to support the bottom line - to support the Non-Revenue programs.

Adding UConn does nothing to help the football bottom line for the ACC's schools that net most of their money from football. UConn will not sell one more ticket in Raleigh, Clemson, Blacksburg, or Tallahassee. What UConn will do is bring another mouth to feed and to monopolize a return date at some point in the future to a State with almost no football recruits.

It's not personal against UConn that the schools with the larger football stadiums who need to fund their non-revenue programs out of the football proceeds and not donations don't get a benefit to adding UConn - it's just business.

Now with BC it's another story.

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 02:53 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  If I were the ACC, I think I'd be trying to make the same deal with Texas that they've made with Notre Dame....all sports but football. Let Texas football be independent like Notre Dame

then you'd have 14 for football, and 16 for basketball. You'd also have two of the most powerful schools in the ACC's corner. Plus, Texas having bigger name football programs, ie FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami, showing on the Longhorn network, I think that would be a plus for them (assuming a partial ACC schedule similar to ND)

If Texas is unavailable and Notre Dame absolutely refuses to join...it would be interesting to see what Houston and Tulane brought...

I really like UConn, but 1) the ACC has that region covered, 2) I'd respect BC's wishes as a conference member

BC should've been told to STFU back in 2011. Also, BC isn't even a blip on the CT sports radar. So that makes post #1 patently false.

UConn wouldn't have had the votes even if BC had wanted to take you.

So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

(06-26-2014 10:02 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:29 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Why would NC State oppose UConn? NC State is certainly not a real football school. When you're good at nothing, you're not really anything centric.

Why? It's called business - I know you have it even at Greenville or did it wash away the last time the Tar River flooded after Hurricane Floyd?

2012:

School - FB Revenue - FB Expenses = Money Supporting Non-Revenue

Clemson - $41 million - $20 million = $21 million to Non-Revenue
NC State - $32 million - $18 million = $14 million to Non-Revenue
East Carolina - $10 million - 9 million = $1 million to Non-Revenue

source: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Now in NC State's case we also net about $11 million off basketball, Clemson doesn't do near that well in BB.

Every football game gate is important at Clemson, and NC State, and VT, and FSU in order to support the bottom line - to support the Non-Revenue programs.

Adding UConn does nothing to help the football bottom line for the ACC's schools that net most of their money from football. UConn will not sell one more ticket in Raleigh, Clemson, Blacksburg, or Tallahassee. What UConn will do is bring another mouth to feed and to monopolize a return date at some point in the future to a State with almost no football recruits.

It's not personal against UConn that the schools with the larger football stadiums who need to fund their non-revenue programs out of the football proceeds and not donations don't get a benefit to adding UConn - it's just business.

Now with BC it's another story.

You keep saying it's not personal against UCONN, but all of your posts about them suggest otherwise.

Def, it's not personal that adding UConn doesn't make money for enough schools in the ACC for UConn not to be able to draw 12 votes. Too many UConn supporters are convinced they can get in based on having a great basketball team when that's not the issue - the issue is money from football.

Moreover, each added school raises the bar to which they must be able to move the cash register just for conference to break even on the addition.

Between the 43 schools in the ACC, B10, and SEC, there are only a few other schools that would actually add net money to the other existing conference members and it's a combination of hitting a new market or adding a top football program, or both.

Case in point - South Carolina would not add net money to the ACC, nor Iowa State to the B10, nor GT to the SEC. They would cover their cost of addition but not really add to the net of the existing schools.

UConn has a serious geography problem in that BC, Syracuse, ND, Pitt fill the ACC's Northeast bucket. Rutgers, MD, and Penn State fill it for the B10.

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  BC should've been told to STFU back in 2011. Also, BC isn't even a blip on the CT sports radar. So that makes post #1 patently false.

UConn wouldn't have had the votes even if BC had wanted to take you.

So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

(06-26-2014 10:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  UConn wouldn't have had the votes even if BC had wanted to take you.

So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

Which is another way of saying that once again, WF did what's best for the league and therefore secretly control the ACC.

(06-26-2014 10:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  UConn wouldn't have had the votes even if BC had wanted to take you.

So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

Yeah, but that was for 2012. I'm talking about when 'Cuse/Pitt were invited in 2011. The only person quoted was a wrinkled up old asshat from BC, and he was forced to "apologize" by ESPiN. Nothing else was reported, it was all speculation. I'm well aware of Clemson's opposition to UCONN for the Louisville invite. In fact, the reporting I read had Clemson/FSU as the most vocal opponents against UCONN.

(06-26-2014 10:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

Which is another way of saying that once again, WF did what's best for the league and therefore secretly control the ACC.

So.......you're applying what happened in 2012 to what happened in 2011? I realize I'm just a simple UCONN fan, who's afraid of big words and small southern towns.

(06-26-2014 08:17 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:50 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:29 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I'll play

If the ACC ever wants in in Texas, UT will be their first best choice absolutely, but if UT were to refuse or deny any interest with the ACC, I think the twin towers Houston and SMU/Dallas together would be their second best choice due to market size and it's awesome recruiting grounds (Football, Basketball and Baseball), IMHO.

Fortunately, TV execs don't share your optimism.

Houston, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose etc have 1 thing in common---- cities without a P5 team.

Focus... Focus... Don't derail another thread, tiny Lubbock fan.

If tiny Lubbock can put 60K in the stands for Tx State, surely UH can put 70k in the stands at Reliant Stadium vs BYU. No---- 50K---- No 40K

Not derailing anything---- just pointing out the greatness of 200K alumni and 40K students in the 4th largest city.

TV execs and P5 Conference commissioners see the same thing. If that bothers you, I'm sorry, not sorry. Maybe some of those new beds on campus will generate life long UH fans that help UH get out of the basement in aac giving.

Good luck

Jesus H. Christ, Private Pyle. If these are the choices, then don't expand.

Tulane is the only one of those I can even come close to stomaching.

If I were supreme ruler of all:

Boot Wake Forest.
Boot Louisville.
Add Notre Dame.
Add West Virginia. Make their fans not suck.
Add Tennessee.
Add Maryland.

Now you can have the best possible solution which is pods:

ACC Coastal South:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech

ACC Coastal North:
Tennessee
North Carolina
Duke
NC State

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame


Every pod is VERY tight nit geographically. Scheduling is easy. The league strength and profile and markets are improved across all sports.

(06-26-2014 11:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  So you say. The truth, however, will most likely never be known because no one from the ACC has commented on the initial vote breakdown of the ACC expansion committee. The only public comments came from that wrinkled up windbag DeFilippo (BC AD) and ESPiN forced him to "apologize". So, as I said, no one knows the vote breakdown and likely never will.

From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

Yeah, but that was for 2012. I'm talking about when 'Cuse/Pitt were invited in 2011. The only person quoted was a wrinkled up old asshat from BC, and he was forced to "apologize" by ESPiN. Nothing else was reported, it was all speculation. I'm well aware of Clemson's opposition to UCONN for the Louisville invite. In fact, the reporting I read had Clemson/FSU as the most vocal opponents against UCONN.

But the thing is had BC been alone in opposing UConn then UConn would have been voted in. No one school can blackball anyone else.

The same dynamics that prevented UConn in 2012 were present in 2011. I would go so far as to say I can't imagine a scenario where either Clemson or FSU would be in favor of adding UConn short of it being a condition that Notre Dame puts forward for full membership. None of the football first schools are going to be willing to add another football black hole in the NE.

If I was the ACC commissioner and had a mind to hit Delany where it hurts, I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame fully to get to 18 and stop. You pick up two AAU schools and 4 national programs three of which are in football and one in hoops. If N.D. refused to come on board fully then I would consider Tulane as destination and bridge addition for a Western grouping of Tulane, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Nobody in the list provided rings any chimes for me if I am ACC commissioner.

With Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas off of the menu where is Jim Delany going to find any more money makers to gobble up? Buffalo and Temple just don't quite get her done.

(06-27-2014 12:30 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 11:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  From what I have been told by someone within the Clemson AD's office it wasn't close. Even Louisville was one vote shy the first go around but because they were the only school even remotely close to having enough support they got the spot. I asked this same person if Clemson would ever support UConn and the reply was "Probably not. Clemson supports football first and foremost and UConn does absolutely nothing to advance the ACC in that sport."

.....but did anyone from Clemson publicly state they voted no to UCONN in 2011? Most reporting I saw at the time, only BC publicly came out against UCONN, and were told to "apologize" by ESPiN. I'm not an expert on the ACC expansion committee, but it's my understanding you (the school) needs 4 (or less) no votes to be brought forth for consideration from the whole conference. So, if your "source" is correct, that means UCONN had 2 no votes in 2011. Which other 2 (or is it 3) schools opposed?

From my understanding the only schools with voting powers who supported UConn were UNC, UVA, Wake, and Duke. The three newcomers (Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) did not have voting powers yet, Maryland did not have a vote since they were withdrawing. So four out of eleven supported UConn, or five votes shy.

It should be noted that the first official vote for membership was for Louisville alone. They received eight votes, or one shy of the required votes to be extended membership. The second vote was unanimous, and Louisville was extended the invitation.

Yeah, but that was for 2012. I'm talking about when 'Cuse/Pitt were invited in 2011. The only person quoted was a wrinkled up old asshat from BC, and he was forced to "apologize" by ESPiN. Nothing else was reported, it was all speculation. I'm well aware of Clemson's opposition to UCONN for the Louisville invite. In fact, the reporting I read had Clemson/FSU as the most vocal opponents against UCONN.

But the thing is had BC been alone in opposing UConn then UConn would have been voted in. No one school can blackball anyone else.

The same dynamics that prevented UConn in 2012 were present in 2011. I would go so far as to say I can't imagine a scenario where either Clemson or FSU would be in favor of adding UConn short of it being a condition that Notre Dame puts forward for full membership. None of the football first schools are going to be willing to add another football black hole in the NE.

That is unlikely, for several reasons:

1) ND ain't joining for football;

2) What has UConn ever done to make ND want to support them in anything?

I think that relations between ND and UConn are likely frosty, at best.

(06-26-2014 11:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Jesus H. Christ, Private Pyle. If these are the choices, then don't expand.

Tulane is the only one of those I can even come close to stomaching.

If I were supreme ruler of all:

Boot Wake Forest.
Boot Louisville.
Add Notre Dame.
Add West Virginia. Make their fans not suck.
Add Tennessee.
Add Maryland.

Now you can have the best possible solution which is pods:

ACC Coastal South:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech

ACC Coastal North:
Tennessee
North Carolina
Duke
NC State

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame


Every pod is VERY tight nit geographically. Scheduling is easy. The league strength and profile and markets are improved across all sports.

Boot Louisville? From a Yellow Jacket fan... They are light years ahead of Georgia Tech when it comes to relevancy and having a superior athletic program. Those who don't contribute ANYTHING to their conference (beyond their geography) shouldn't be throwing stones..

We're adding Texas and PSU... That's my story and I'm sticking with it to the death ala The Dude!!!!!!!!!!

(06-27-2014 07:45 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 11:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Jesus H. Christ, Private Pyle. If these are the choices, then don't expand.

Tulane is the only one of those I can even come close to stomaching.

If I were supreme ruler of all:

Boot Wake Forest.
Boot Louisville.
Add Notre Dame.
Add West Virginia. Make their fans not suck.
Add Tennessee.
Add Maryland.

Now you can have the best possible solution which is pods:

ACC Coastal South:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech

ACC Coastal North:
Tennessee
North Carolina
Duke
NC State

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame


Every pod is VERY tight nit geographically. Scheduling is easy. The league strength and profile and markets are improved across all sports.

Boot Louisville? From a Yellow Jacket fan... They are light years ahead of Georgia Tech when it comes to relevancy and having a superior athletic program. Those who don't contribute ANYTHING to their conference (beyond their geography) shouldn't be throwing stones..

It ok...but to boot us and a Founding Member in Wake Forest...someone that voted to invite Georgia Tech is funny.

West Virginia vs. Louisville is kind of odd...nothing against WVU but the academic profile is virtually the same...but Louisville is much more of a money making machine and much more successful all around in Athletics as compared to WVU....

(06-27-2014 07:49 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  We're adding Texas and PSU... That's my story and I'm sticking with it to the death ala The Dude!!!!!!!!!!

Deregulation and stop at 15 with Penn State....

(06-26-2014 11:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Jesus H. Christ, Private Pyle. If these are the choices, then don't expand.

Tulane is the only one of those I can even come close to stomaching.

If I were supreme ruler of all:

Boot Wake Forest.
Boot Louisville.
Add Notre Dame.
Add West Virginia. Make their fans not suck.
Add Tennessee.
Add Maryland.

Now you can have the best possible solution which is pods:

ACC Coastal South:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech

ACC Coastal North:
Tennessee
North Carolina
Duke
NC State

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame


Every pod is VERY tight nit geographically. Scheduling is easy. The league strength and profile and markets are improved across all sports.

I vote for this.

(06-26-2014 11:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Jesus H. Christ, Private Pyle. If these are the choices, then don't expand.

Tulane is the only one of those I can even come close to stomaching.

If I were supreme ruler of all:

Boot Wake Forest.
Boot Louisville.
Add Notre Dame.
Add West Virginia. Make their fans not suck.
Add Tennessee.
Add Maryland.

Now you can have the best possible solution which is pods:

ACC Coastal South:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech

ACC Coastal North:
Tennessee
North Carolina
Duke
NC State

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame


Every pod is VERY tight nit geographically. Scheduling is easy. The league strength and profile and markets are improved across all sports.

Boot the entire BE group, except for Virginia Tech and Miami.

Add Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

That would make for an awesome Southeast Atlantic Coast Conference.

Keep the Big East intact with all eastern football schools plus PSU.

The SEC can take Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas to replace S. Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

I'll take Louisville "Everyday and Sunday" over WVU in a "pick one scenario". If you are going to include Notre Dame you need Louisville as a bridge to South Bend. I know UL has idiot fans just like everyone else...but WVU idiot fans are "in a league of their own" for idiotness. <---is that a real word? ;-)