(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Schools that I would be alright with:
*WVU
*PSU
*UMD
*ND (full)
*UTex (full or partial)
*USCarolina (there is roughly a 0.0...1% chance of this happening)
*Tennessee (there is roughly a 0.0...1% chance of this happening)
*Florida (there is roughly a 0.0...1% chance of this happening)
*Tulane (if the other school is *really* good - ND, PSU, UTex, UF, or UTenn)
*Rice (if the other school is *really* good - ND, PSU, UTex, UF, or UTenn)
*Villanova (non-football, with *no* hope of football joining)
*Georgetown (non-football, with *no* hope of football joining)
*UConn (non-football, with *no* hope of football joining)
*JHN (Lax-only)

Schools that I am not OK with:
*Everyone else

**Before everyone jumps on me, Rice and Tulane won't happen**


***FWIW, I also think that it would be cool if SU and Pitt took turns opening against PSU and WVU. Pitt v WVU/PSU could be H&H's, and SU v PSU could be a yearly neutral site game in the Meadowlands and SU v WVU could be a yearly H&H.

****All that said, going back to the purpose of the thread, I think that an ACCN is a good idea, but I think that the benefits are often overstated and the costs are often understated. It isn't worth losing the farm.

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Kansas has been horrible of late. But they have seen success within the last decade. If they were to land the right coach to grab some recruits and improve on the field, they could turn things around.

2014 (3-9)
2013 (3-9)
2012 (1-11)
2011 (2-10)
2010 (3-9)
2009 (5-7)
2008 (8-5)
2007 (12-1 - Orange Bowl win)
2006 (6-6)
2005 (7-5)

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Kansas is the P5 team that Duke and Wake want to schedule OOC. Don't mess that up for them!

(05-22-2015 03:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  Kansas has been horrible of late. But they have seen success within the last decade. If they were to land the right coach to grab some recruits and improve on the field, they could turn things around.

2014 (3-9)
2013 (3-9)
2012 (1-11)
2011 (2-10)
2010 (3-9)
2009 (5-7)
2008 (8-5)
2007 (12-1 - Orange Bowl win)
2006 (6-6)
2005 (7-5)

"Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then".

(05-22-2015 03:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Kansas has been horrible of late. But they have seen success within the last decade. If they were to land the right coach to grab some recruits and improve on the field, they could turn things around.

2014 (3-9)
2013 (3-9)
2012 (1-11)
2011 (2-10)
2010 (3-9)
2009 (5-7)
2008 (8-5)
2007 (12-1 - Orange Bowl win)
2006 (6-6)
2005 (7-5)

You're looking at the situation as if KU was a traditionally strong program that is having a dry spell, and not like a traditionally awful program that had a brief streak of luck.

KU epitome of a basketball school.

(05-22-2015 03:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Kansas is the P5 team that Duke and Wake want to schedule OOC. Don't mess that up for them!

Just because they are part of the ACC doesn't mean they can't be an OOC game for Duke and Wake.

Kansas, nor West Va, would have the support to be the 16th school. The could get support in an 18 team model, but not 16. The 16th team has to bring bonus money for expansion, not just pay for itself. Just 4 votes are needed to block any addition. UVa, Duke, and GT will need a very hefty bribe to vote for WVa and Pitt as well as VT would have to be okay with the addition, even then, there might be ACC rules regarding admission standards given WVa's historic mission within the State of West Va. Kansas would never fly with FSU, Clemson, and anyone in the conference distrustful of UNC's historic doppelganger and they are UNC's doppelganger having traded coaches and administrators with each other for the last 60 years. The 16th school also needs to be who ND wants if ND is going to up it's football games.

Now if you have an 18 school model with Texas, Kansas, and West Va then you have a package deal that all will probably agree to, even Duke and UVa. Of course to make that number work in football, you have to be creative with divisions or pods.

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:47 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil, there is a common factor in all of this, control and the level of investment in athletics. Even way back when the SEC supported going to bowls and the growth of athletics. It's not that the core ACC schools were against athletics, as much as they just didn't want to put the money into football at levels that others wanted to. Are the issues really any different today where the Tobacco Road crowd is concerned? I think they realized once they got down to 7 that something had to be done with the SEC and Big 10 standing at ten each. Then when the Big East put it together they realized that their ostrich routine had hemmed them in. If you think about it the Big East and ACC faced the same issues. Both were next to larger and more heavily invested conferences and both really only offered stellar basketball, although the Big East had schools with history in football success. The ACC started adding such schools in the South first. Georgia Tech followed some years later by Florida State gaVe them their first taste of what an enhanced football revenue could do for them. I think at that juncture they realized that they couldn't take on the SEC or Big 10 until they grew. Perhaps ESPN helped them to see this. But in any event they soon realized that either the Big East would eventually raid them, or they would need to raid the Big East for survival. The idea of an alliance really just clued them both into that avenue being the only viable means with which to grow enough to be able to fend off incursions by their stronger neighbors. ESPN helped the ACC by their relationship with the SEC which checked SEC aspirations to the East. That wasn't the case for the Big 10. Since Delany eyed the Big Apple and the Beltway I think ESPN helped the ACC take the products they wanted from the Big East. This protected their interest in Syracuse, B.C., Virginia Tech and Pitt and added Miami to the Southern ACC profile. I think those moves helped you survive the fate that the Big 12 has suffered.

Sadly if the old core still wants to hang onto their 6 and sometimes 7 vote block within the conference then they can't grow further. But to survive indefinitely they need Texas or Texas and a couple of buddies. With the Irish and Horns they bring a balance to the Eastern half of the country. If Texas eventually picks the Big 10 or SEC then balance is lost and eventually there will be major instability again.

So a step behind the times....yes. Scared? Yes but of losing their strangle hold over the conference.

And perhaps the most ironic part is that had the supposed "alliance" in football recommended by Tranghese between the Big East and ACC back in the late 90s been adopted, the ACC would have been exactly where it was after it had expanded with SU and Pitt in 2011 over a decade later - a 14 team football conference with the ACC 9 plus Miami, BC, Pitt, SU, and VT with the "core ACC" teams still in charge of basketball and everything else.

As for Texas, it is the new PSU in the current paradigm. Which the league might not have needed if it had gone guns a blazing earlier for the PAC on steroid vision. And should the Texas option ever crystallize, it will as you say likely require "and friends" to be added further diluting the control of the core group.

And then a consequence of that could that UNC and UVa say "screw this", this isn't our conference anymore so make an offer B1G and SEC.

Cheers,
Neil

U.N.C. and UVa might do as you indicate, but my money would be that they stay and adapt. Egos such as those two have like to see their pictures on the wall, their names in the record books, and love the tips of the caps from the old timers. The wouldn't even have that if they moved. So if they have the brains that they claim they will do whatever is necessary to land Texas even if it means a couple of buddies. By letting go of control now they will preserve what they have already built in the memories of their institutions and among their alums. To refuse that which benefits the most will be to lose control and to move would be a bitter divorce from which neither would ever completely recover.

The Big 10 and SEC had nothing to do with the GT addition in 1978. The ACC's thinking back then was so regional that the world did not exist west of Atlanta nor north of College Park, MD. The addition was about liking visits to Atlanta from Podunk places in the Carolina's, Va, and South Carolina. It's been nearly 40 years since GT was added.

It's also about something more than simple money - it's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team. You can hide three to five idiots on the basketball team, but not 30 or so kids who function at an 8th grade level on a football team. There was a racial and socio-economic component to it as well.

(05-21-2015 10:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Orange, the history of the ACC is the history of growing too big and breaking apart. The orginal conference was the SAIAA with MD, VT, UVa, NC State, UNC and several others such as Davidson, IIRC. That conference merged with the other major southern schools to form the Southern Conference in 1921, soon there were 23 schools in the conference and the football title was being decided based on as few a 4 games. The 13 schools south and west of the Appalachians left in 1933 to form the SEC - Bama, Auburn, TN, Vandy, KY, GT, Georiga, Florida, Ole Miss, MSU, LSU, Tulane, and Sewanee. The 10 that stayed with Southern Conference name were MD, UVa, VT, VMI, Washington & Lee, UNC, NC State, Duke, SC, and Clemson. The SoCon ballooned again in 1937 after UVa went independent in 1936. The SoCon added Wake Forest, Furman, William and Mary, George Washington, and was at 16 when in 1951 a vote was held that added West Va, bringing the conference to 17. That lasted all of three years.

This specific history of growing too large and too diverse sticks with the old core schools. This is one of the reason ACC expansion was such a fight for so many years. It was all about how many votes it took to block something and maintaining the country club governance structure. It's still run like a country club or cotillion club where the committee structures is used to compartmentalize the decision making process until an issue hits the executive board.

Does this history truly back up your point? I don't think it does. Most of those core teams were instrumental in creating the SoCon which had 14 members at the start and then starting in its second year grew to 20 plus again with the "core" groups help and direction.

It remained at 20 plus until as you state the 13 premiere programs in the conference left to form the SEC. And how did the future core ACC teams react? Did they decide to remain a compact conference of 10?

According to Kevin Edds Death of a Conference series:

"Clemson, Duke, NC State, Maryland, South Carolina, UNC, and Virginia, along with Virginia Tech, Washington & Lee, and VMI, searched for reinforcements."

This even though other conferences (except the newly formed SEC) were already trending toward smaller and more compact.

They wound up expanding with 7 more to bring the total back up well into the teens. And it stayed that way for another two decades again under their leadership. They were in total control of the conference at that time. And when UVa left, it had little to do with the size of the conference, it was about whether to pay scholarships to athletes or have them remain true amateurs.

By the time they broke away to form the ACC, all the other major sports conferences (except the SEC) were between 7 and 10 members.

This notion that somehow the ACC schools were "scarred" by the larger conference THEY were responsible for just doesn't pass scrutiny, imho.

When it was acceptable to be large they did so and remained so well after that point in time when others thought smaller was better. They were the last to go small when that was in vogue and remained the smallest at 9 after all the other major conferences expanded (or merged in the case of the Big 8 and SWAC) to 10 or beyond.

Seems to me the actual history supports my theory of the leadership mostly being a step behind the times rather than this 'skeered' of growth theory of yours.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - this is the full quote from the Edd's article, not what you took out of context:

"By 1932 the SoCon, the alliance formed a decade earlier with the intention of “keeping its numbers small” to balance scheduling, had grown from 14 to 23. Virginia Tech’s C.P. “Sally” Miles, president of this alliance, was notably proud of his position in this new superconference. But, when calling the 1932 meeting of its representatives to order, he was cut off by Georgia president Steadman Sanford who immediately announced that 13 schools were breaking away to form “The Southeastern Conference.” Florida president John Tigert said that while he regretted it, the conference had just “grown too large.”

At 23 members, the Southern Conference had become unmanageable. The lack of a round-robin schedule, or even divisions breaking off into a championship game, led to squabbles over who would be crowned each season. Several unofficial champions would claim the Southern title in the same season, even producing their own trophies to commemorate it.

The Big Ten, with its ability to definitively crown a champion, provided an example that the new SEC wanted to follow. A few years prior to their exodus, eight of the institutions had discussed a potential break-off. They even tested out the name “The Big Eight” like a lavaliered debutant trying out her beau’s surname to see how it sounded.

While 10 member institutions was good enough for the Big Ten, the 10 remaining schools in the Southern Conference: Clemson, Duke, NC State, Maryland, South Carolina, UNC, and Virginia, along with Virginia Tech, Washington & Lee, and VMI, searched for reinforcements. In four years, the SoCon was back up to 17 members with invitations to Wake Forest, George Washington, Richmond, William & Mary, The Citadel, Davidson, and Furman. "

The prime reason the So-Con expanded again in 1937 was that UVa left in 1936 and as had been a problem in the past, there was no consensus on who to add - just as there had been no consensus in the Southern Conference in 1923 on adding two so they instead added 6.

When the So-Con was formed in 1921 it was formed primarily by MD and included Bama, Auburn, GA, GT, UK, Mississippi State, VT, UVa, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Washington & Lee, and MD. It was formed with bylaws to stop expanding at 16 - no consensus could be gained on the 2 so an offer was made to Florida, Vandy, South Carolina, Ole Miss, LSU, and Tulane - this addition shifted the geographic and POLITICAL center of the conference south and west from the original 14 schools. In the next few years Sewanee, VMI, and Duke were added - ending up in an unmanageable 23 and no clear champion especially in football.

Like JR said, it is the fear of the loss of control over the exclusive club due to excessive size that was driving a non-expansion agenda. I thought I made that clear. At 16 it takes 9 to do any business. It takes 12 to do anything major.

(05-22-2015 05:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:47 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil, there is a common factor in all of this, control and the level of investment in athletics. Even way back when the SEC supported going to bowls and the growth of athletics. It's not that the core ACC schools were against athletics, as much as they just didn't want to put the money into football at levels that others wanted to. Are the issues really any different today where the Tobacco Road crowd is concerned? I think they realized once they got down to 7 that something had to be done with the SEC and Big 10 standing at ten each. Then when the Big East put it together they realized that their ostrich routine had hemmed them in. If you think about it the Big East and ACC faced the same issues. Both were next to larger and more heavily invested conferences and both really only offered stellar basketball, although the Big East had schools with history in football success. The ACC started adding such schools in the South first. Georgia Tech followed some years later by Florida State gaVe them their first taste of what an enhanced football revenue could do for them. I think at that juncture they realized that they couldn't take on the SEC or Big 10 until they grew. Perhaps ESPN helped them to see this. But in any event they soon realized that either the Big East would eventually raid them, or they would need to raid the Big East for survival. The idea of an alliance really just clued them both into that avenue being the only viable means with which to grow enough to be able to fend off incursions by their stronger neighbors. ESPN helped the ACC by their relationship with the SEC which checked SEC aspirations to the East. That wasn't the case for the Big 10. Since Delany eyed the Big Apple and the Beltway I think ESPN helped the ACC take the products they wanted from the Big East. This protected their interest in Syracuse, B.C., Virginia Tech and Pitt and added Miami to the Southern ACC profile. I think those moves helped you survive the fate that the Big 12 has suffered.

Sadly if the old core still wants to hang onto their 6 and sometimes 7 vote block within the conference then they can't grow further. But to survive indefinitely they need Texas or Texas and a couple of buddies. With the Irish and Horns they bring a balance to the Eastern half of the country. If Texas eventually picks the Big 10 or SEC then balance is lost and eventually there will be major instability again.

So a step behind the times....yes. Scared? Yes but of losing their strangle hold over the conference.

And perhaps the most ironic part is that had the supposed "alliance" in football recommended by Tranghese between the Big East and ACC back in the late 90s been adopted, the ACC would have been exactly where it was after it had expanded with SU and Pitt in 2011 over a decade later - a 14 team football conference with the ACC 9 plus Miami, BC, Pitt, SU, and VT with the "core ACC" teams still in charge of basketball and everything else.

As for Texas, it is the new PSU in the current paradigm. Which the league might not have needed if it had gone guns a blazing earlier for the PAC on steroid vision. And should the Texas option ever crystallize, it will as you say likely require "and friends" to be added further diluting the control of the core group.

And then a consequence of that could that UNC and UVa say "screw this", this isn't our conference anymore so make an offer B1G and SEC.

Cheers,
Neil

U.N.C. and UVa might do as you indicate, but my money would be that they stay and adapt. Egos such as those two have like to see their pictures on the wall, their names in the record books, and love the tips of the caps from the old timers. The wouldn't even have that if they moved. So if they have the brains that they claim they will do whatever is necessary to land Texas even if it means a couple of buddies. By letting go of control now they will preserve what they have already built in the memories of their institutions and among their alums. To refuse that which benefits the most will be to lose control and to move would be a bitter divorce from which neither would ever completely recover.

The Big 10 and SEC had nothing to do with the GT addition in 1978. The ACC's thinking back then was so regional that the world did not exist west of Atlanta nor north of College Park, MD. The addition was about liking visits to Atlanta from Podunk places in the Carolina's, Va, and South Carolina. It's been nearly 40 years since GT was added.

It's also about something more than simple money - it's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team. You can hide three to five idiots on the basketball team, but not 30 or so kids who function at an 8th grade level on a football team. There was a racial and socio-economic component to it as well.

1. GT was added to make up for South Carolina's departure. It fit geographically and gave them Atlanta. But, they also brought some football gravitas to the ACC that paid off in 1990. F.S.U. was clearly a football move.

2. Are you serious??????? U.N.C.'s academic scandal dates back to when? Dean Smith's era in hoops and involved the football program too? I can find much to agree with in many of your posts but this part of your reply is simply absurd. "It's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team." Nearly forty years of fraud says otherwise!

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Gotta agree here. We already have massive basketball power. Football power is a must. We need Notre Dame and whoever they decide makes it worth going full time.

(05-22-2015 08:19 PM)RedGrad Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 02:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  PLEASE, NO MORE BASKETBALL-FIRST SCHOOLS!

Basketball is going to be a driver for a conference network. I may be looking through red colored glasses but I think UofL does a good job on both the football and basketball/Oly sport front. I think we need another combo school like us. WVU is definitely one and I think Kansas is as well. With the Charlie Strong and Smart hire, I think Texas would benefit from playing schools in our conference. Anybody else?

How on earth is Kansas a "combo school"? Is simply having a team make you a combo school? Because any higher bar than that, and Kansas would not pass.

There will be plenty of basketball content for any potential network as is.

Gotta agree here. We already have massive basketball power. Football power is a must. We need Notre Dame and whoever they decide makes it worth going full time.

I don't disagree.

What I am trying to do is keep ND independent. Best way for that to happen is if Texas goes independent. If the ACC could get 6 games with Notre Dame, 6 games with Texas and six rivalry games with the SEC I think that would be a lot of great content and opportunity to prove our worth. Hence my Kansas suggestion. If WVU goes to the SEC that would work as well. If Oklahoma joins SEC and we invite Oklahoma State that would work as well.

(05-22-2015 07:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 05:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:47 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil, there is a common factor in all of this, control and the level of investment in athletics. Even way back when the SEC supported going to bowls and the growth of athletics. It's not that the core ACC schools were against athletics, as much as they just didn't want to put the money into football at levels that others wanted to. Are the issues really any different today where the Tobacco Road crowd is concerned? I think they realized once they got down to 7 that something had to be done with the SEC and Big 10 standing at ten each. Then when the Big East put it together they realized that their ostrich routine had hemmed them in. If you think about it the Big East and ACC faced the same issues. Both were next to larger and more heavily invested conferences and both really only offered stellar basketball, although the Big East had schools with history in football success. The ACC started adding such schools in the South first. Georgia Tech followed some years later by Florida State gaVe them their first taste of what an enhanced football revenue could do for them. I think at that juncture they realized that they couldn't take on the SEC or Big 10 until they grew. Perhaps ESPN helped them to see this. But in any event they soon realized that either the Big East would eventually raid them, or they would need to raid the Big East for survival. The idea of an alliance really just clued them both into that avenue being the only viable means with which to grow enough to be able to fend off incursions by their stronger neighbors. ESPN helped the ACC by their relationship with the SEC which checked SEC aspirations to the East. That wasn't the case for the Big 10. Since Delany eyed the Big Apple and the Beltway I think ESPN helped the ACC take the products they wanted from the Big East. This protected their interest in Syracuse, B.C., Virginia Tech and Pitt and added Miami to the Southern ACC profile. I think those moves helped you survive the fate that the Big 12 has suffered.

Sadly if the old core still wants to hang onto their 6 and sometimes 7 vote block within the conference then they can't grow further. But to survive indefinitely they need Texas or Texas and a couple of buddies. With the Irish and Horns they bring a balance to the Eastern half of the country. If Texas eventually picks the Big 10 or SEC then balance is lost and eventually there will be major instability again.

So a step behind the times....yes. Scared? Yes but of losing their strangle hold over the conference.

And perhaps the most ironic part is that had the supposed "alliance" in football recommended by Tranghese between the Big East and ACC back in the late 90s been adopted, the ACC would have been exactly where it was after it had expanded with SU and Pitt in 2011 over a decade later - a 14 team football conference with the ACC 9 plus Miami, BC, Pitt, SU, and VT with the "core ACC" teams still in charge of basketball and everything else.

As for Texas, it is the new PSU in the current paradigm. Which the league might not have needed if it had gone guns a blazing earlier for the PAC on steroid vision. And should the Texas option ever crystallize, it will as you say likely require "and friends" to be added further diluting the control of the core group.

And then a consequence of that could that UNC and UVa say "screw this", this isn't our conference anymore so make an offer B1G and SEC.

Cheers,
Neil

U.N.C. and UVa might do as you indicate, but my money would be that they stay and adapt. Egos such as those two have like to see their pictures on the wall, their names in the record books, and love the tips of the caps from the old timers. The wouldn't even have that if they moved. So if they have the brains that they claim they will do whatever is necessary to land Texas even if it means a couple of buddies. By letting go of control now they will preserve what they have already built in the memories of their institutions and among their alums. To refuse that which benefits the most will be to lose control and to move would be a bitter divorce from which neither would ever completely recover.

The Big 10 and SEC had nothing to do with the GT addition in 1978. The ACC's thinking back then was so regional that the world did not exist west of Atlanta nor north of College Park, MD. The addition was about liking visits to Atlanta from Podunk places in the Carolina's, Va, and South Carolina. It's been nearly 40 years since GT was added.

It's also about something more than simple money - it's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team. You can hide three to five idiots on the basketball team, but not 30 or so kids who function at an 8th grade level on a football team. There was a racial and socio-economic component to it as well.

1. GT was added to make up for South Carolina's departure. It fit geographically and gave them Atlanta. But, they also brought some football gravitas to the ACC that paid off in 1990. F.S.U. was clearly a football move.

2. Are you serious??????? U.N.C.'s academic scandal dates back to when? Dean Smith's era in hoops and involved the football program too? I can find much to agree with in many of your posts but this part of your reply is simply absurd. "It's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team." Nearly forty years of fraud says otherwise!

Just because UNC is hypocritical doesn't change the underlying fundamentals that in the ACC most of the schools did not want to have to admit large numbers of difficult to control knuckleheads. And I said football and basketball are two different animals. Hiding a handful of stupid basketball players is one thing - hiding a bunch of football players is something else. You can hide 2-4 morons, not 30-40. For UVa, Duke, WF, and NC State not admitting morons was important to them. At UNC it was always important not to admit enough for the discreprency to show up in public. As long as the intense cheating was just in basketball, they could keep a lid on it, when it migrated on an industrial scale to football and baseball, it could no longer be hidden.

Don't underestimate the internal fight between the win at all cost alums and boosters and business men who profit off UNC and the real academics and high minded, ethical crowd. That's real. UNC has cheated at sports since the 1930's. Their cheating was an issue for UVa and is mentioned in their Board of Trustees minutes when they were considering rejoining the group in 1953.

I understand not understanding the hypocrisy and the willful blindness - it's logical only when you understand the nature of UNC-Ch and the consequences of what happens when a liberal arts university without a STEM or AG component is taken over by it's business school and the b-school mentality begins to rule. Ethics are irrelevant in business school - profit is all that matters and that ethos has spread into the biological related research areas.

Most ACC schools did not want to admit who they would have to admit to continue to play big-time football - that's why the 800 SAT rule was passed in 1962. Like I said, it had a racial and socio-economic component.

I suspect that if you hauled Auburn's and Alabama's boards into private and asked them "do you want to admit kids who can not do college work" they will almost all say "no". That's why boosters find a way around them and the more ethical university elements.

(05-23-2015 08:49 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 05:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:47 AM)omniorange Wrote:  And perhaps the most ironic part is that had the supposed "alliance" in football recommended by Tranghese between the Big East and ACC back in the late 90s been adopted, the ACC would have been exactly where it was after it had expanded with SU and Pitt in 2011 over a decade later - a 14 team football conference with the ACC 9 plus Miami, BC, Pitt, SU, and VT with the "core ACC" teams still in charge of basketball and everything else.

As for Texas, it is the new PSU in the current paradigm. Which the league might not have needed if it had gone guns a blazing earlier for the PAC on steroid vision. And should the Texas option ever crystallize, it will as you say likely require "and friends" to be added further diluting the control of the core group.

And then a consequence of that could that UNC and UVa say "screw this", this isn't our conference anymore so make an offer B1G and SEC.

Cheers,
Neil

U.N.C. and UVa might do as you indicate, but my money would be that they stay and adapt. Egos such as those two have like to see their pictures on the wall, their names in the record books, and love the tips of the caps from the old timers. The wouldn't even have that if they moved. So if they have the brains that they claim they will do whatever is necessary to land Texas even if it means a couple of buddies. By letting go of control now they will preserve what they have already built in the memories of their institutions and among their alums. To refuse that which benefits the most will be to lose control and to move would be a bitter divorce from which neither would ever completely recover.

The Big 10 and SEC had nothing to do with the GT addition in 1978. The ACC's thinking back then was so regional that the world did not exist west of Atlanta nor north of College Park, MD. The addition was about liking visits to Atlanta from Podunk places in the Carolina's, Va, and South Carolina. It's been nearly 40 years since GT was added.

It's also about something more than simple money - it's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team. You can hide three to five idiots on the basketball team, but not 30 or so kids who function at an 8th grade level on a football team. There was a racial and socio-economic component to it as well.

1. GT was added to make up for South Carolina's departure. It fit geographically and gave them Atlanta. But, they also brought some football gravitas to the ACC that paid off in 1990. F.S.U. was clearly a football move.

2. Are you serious??????? U.N.C.'s academic scandal dates back to when? Dean Smith's era in hoops and involved the football program too? I can find much to agree with in many of your posts but this part of your reply is simply absurd. "It's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team." Nearly forty years of fraud says otherwise!

Just because UNC is hypocritical doesn't change the underlying fundamentals that in the ACC most of the schools did not want to have to admit large numbers of difficult to control knuckleheads. And I said football and basketball are two different animals. Hiding a handful of stupid basketball players is one thing - hiding a bunch of football players is something else. You can hide 2-4 morons, not 30-40. For UVa, Duke, WF, and NC State not admitting morons was important to them. At UNC it was always important not to admit enough for the discreprency to show up in public. As long as the intense cheating was just in basketball, they could keep a lid on it, when it migrated on an industrial scale to football and baseball, it could no longer be hidden.

Don't underestimate the internal fight between the win at all cost alums and boosters and business men who profit off UNC and the real academics and high minded, ethical crowd. That's real. UNC has cheated at sports since the 1930's. Their cheating was an issue for UVa and is mentioned in their Board of Trustees minutes when they were considering rejoining the group in 1953.

I understand not understanding the hypocrisy and the willful blindness - it's logical only when you understand the nature of UNC-Ch and the consequences of what happens when a liberal arts university without a STEM or AG component is taken over by it's business school and the b-school mentality begins to rule. Ethics are irrelevant in business school - profit is all that matters and that ethos has spread into the biological related research areas.

Most ACC schools did not want to admit who they would have to admit to continue to play big-time football - that's why the 800 SAT rule was passed in 1962. Like I said, it had a racial and socio-economic component.

I suspect that if you hauled Auburn's and Alabama's boards into private and asked them "do you want to admit kids who can not do college work" they will almost all say "no". That's why boosters find a way around them and the more ethical university elements.

Idealistically I'm right there with you. Realistically the social components of what you lay out are a jumble of issues more vast than your words can adequately express. But I do believe wholeheartedly that the tenor of your remarks are indicative of a vast national crisis in ethics and morality that the blind goal of profits only has nurtured and cultivated into a fully grown monster that is destroying the very tenets upon which we were founded.

Face it that wonderful 800 SAT has been dumbed down at least 5 times since the 60's and every time they did so they gave some social reason for making the changes. I'm still out in the public enough to see that college graduates today lack basic math skills, have no sense grammar, can't spell, can't look another person in the eye, insulate themselves with their numerous electronic devices, and have no critical thinking or problem solving skills. I think we've been unwittingly groomed for disaster. Why?

Young people don't have the analytical abilities to see the eventual outcome of broken or mal-aligned systems. They aren't taught initiative, but have been enculturated to blindly follow what they are told, and to abhor the consequences of making a decision. Therefore they will never fix a problem they are observing, but will be naturally inclined to assign blame for it to someone, anyone, else. Without initiative they don't even know how to protect themselves in a crisis. They were never allowed to defend themselves physically on a playground or at school when bullied. Without an authority figure they just endure whatever crisis presents itself. Robbed of the natural desire to defend oneself and the understanding of the old universal law that self defense is always permitted, they become chronic victims. They don't research sources of information, merely trusting whatever an electronic device tells them. This I witnessed first hand while working on my Masters in the stacks of the library. None of the younger students ever verified information that was current by comparing it to archived data that was actually recorded at the time of the event they were researching. While time certainly clarifies some data, we live in an age of political spin. Archived data clearly revealed that spin and not researching it kept one from gaining perspective.

So, "if you don't know history you are doomed to repeat it" is coming to fruition. We are returning to the company store days of worker exploitation, adopting a corporate first mentality that always precedes moves toward the fascist approach of governing in that it basically says that the good of the whole comes before the individual and the whole is easily defined as you outline as the what profits the companies that make up our nation (much as was stated by the pleas by our politicians for the bailout) and individual liberties and freedoms are sacrificed in what follows for the good of the state. The state now defines your existence rather than the well being of the citizens defining the mission of the state. Before you know it you live in a backasswords world run by profit, incapable of defending individual rights or even national boundaries when it violates the corporate bottom line or the national need to appropriate funds.

So LP4, I completely understand the nature of U.N.C.'s hypocrisy, I do hear what you are saying in that it is not the creation of all ACC schools or leadership, but I also recognize that what has happened at U.N.C. and many other schools in all of our conferences across the nation is the byproduct of the rational mind pursuing profit as the end all, while simultaneously fighting against any religion and ethical training that would call into question its methods. So we have a campaign against all religion in the name of tolerance and the new P.C. paradigm against any stalwart moral stance. In that atmosphere every abuse may be tolerated as long as it is in the "good of the Nation" and every citizen is good as long as they don't hold anyone accountable, and those who do are now clearly labeled as cranks, trouble makers, insane, and dangerous for simply pointing out the error of our ways. So the new social paradigm of "mind your own business" and "don't make waves" has now replaced the old paradigm of "constant vigilance against all enemies foreign and domestic". God help us!

I'll stop now. I have a bunker to build for my grandchildren. I'm too old, but they'll need it.

(05-23-2015 09:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:49 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 05:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  U.N.C. and UVa might do as you indicate, but my money would be that they stay and adapt. Egos such as those two have like to see their pictures on the wall, their names in the record books, and love the tips of the caps from the old timers. The wouldn't even have that if they moved. So if they have the brains that they claim they will do whatever is necessary to land Texas even if it means a couple of buddies. By letting go of control now they will preserve what they have already built in the memories of their institutions and among their alums. To refuse that which benefits the most will be to lose control and to move would be a bitter divorce from which neither would ever completely recover.

The Big 10 and SEC had nothing to do with the GT addition in 1978. The ACC's thinking back then was so regional that the world did not exist west of Atlanta nor north of College Park, MD. The addition was about liking visits to Atlanta from Podunk places in the Carolina's, Va, and South Carolina. It's been nearly 40 years since GT was added.

It's also about something more than simple money - it's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team. You can hide three to five idiots on the basketball team, but not 30 or so kids who function at an 8th grade level on a football team. There was a racial and socio-economic component to it as well.

1. GT was added to make up for South Carolina's departure. It fit geographically and gave them Atlanta. But, they also brought some football gravitas to the ACC that paid off in 1990. F.S.U. was clearly a football move.

2. Are you serious??????? U.N.C.'s academic scandal dates back to when? Dean Smith's era in hoops and involved the football program too? I can find much to agree with in many of your posts but this part of your reply is simply absurd. "It's about not admitting kids to school who have no business being there in the numbers needed to support a football team." Nearly forty years of fraud says otherwise!

Just because UNC is hypocritical doesn't change the underlying fundamentals that in the ACC most of the schools did not want to have to admit large numbers of difficult to control knuckleheads. And I said football and basketball are two different animals. Hiding a handful of stupid basketball players is one thing - hiding a bunch of football players is something else. You can hide 2-4 morons, not 30-40. For UVa, Duke, WF, and NC State not admitting morons was important to them. At UNC it was always important not to admit enough for the discreprency to show up in public. As long as the intense cheating was just in basketball, they could keep a lid on it, when it migrated on an industrial scale to football and baseball, it could no longer be hidden.

Don't underestimate the internal fight between the win at all cost alums and boosters and business men who profit off UNC and the real academics and high minded, ethical crowd. That's real. UNC has cheated at sports since the 1930's. Their cheating was an issue for UVa and is mentioned in their Board of Trustees minutes when they were considering rejoining the group in 1953.

I understand not understanding the hypocrisy and the willful blindness - it's logical only when you understand the nature of UNC-Ch and the consequences of what happens when a liberal arts university without a STEM or AG component is taken over by it's business school and the b-school mentality begins to rule. Ethics are irrelevant in business school - profit is all that matters and that ethos has spread into the biological related research areas.

Most ACC schools did not want to admit who they would have to admit to continue to play big-time football - that's why the 800 SAT rule was passed in 1962. Like I said, it had a racial and socio-economic component.

I suspect that if you hauled Auburn's and Alabama's boards into private and asked them "do you want to admit kids who can not do college work" they will almost all say "no". That's why boosters find a way around them and the more ethical university elements.

Idealistically I'm right there with you. Realistically the social components of what you lay out are a jumble of issues more vast than your words can adequately express. But I do believe wholeheartedly that the tenor of your remarks are indicative of a vast national crisis in ethics and morality that the blind goal of profits only has nurtured and cultivated into a fully grown monster that is destroying the very tenets upon which we were founded.

Face it that wonderful 800 SAT has been dumbed down at least 5 times since the 60's and every time they did so they gave some social reason for making the changes. I'm still out in the public enough to see that college graduates today lack basic math skills, have no sense grammar, can't spell, can't look another person in the eye, insulate themselves with their numerous electronic devices, and have no critical thinking or problem solving skills. I think we've been unwittingly groomed for disaster. Why?

Young people don't have the analytical abilities to see the eventual outcome of broken or mal-aligned systems. They aren't taught initiative, but have been enculturated to blindly follow what they are told, and to abhor the consequences of making a decision. Therefore they will never fix a problem they are observing, but will be naturally inclined to assign blame for it to someone, anyone, else. Without initiative they don't even no how to protect themselves in a crisis. They were never allowed to defend themselves physically on a playground or at school when bullied. Without an authority figure they just endure whatever crisis presents itself. Robbed of the natural desire to defend oneself and the understanding of the old universal law that self defense is always permitted, they become chronic victims. They don't research sources of information, merely trusting whatever an electronic device tells them. This I witnessed first hand while working on my Masters in the stacks of the library. None of the younger students ever verified information that was current by comparing it to archived data that was actually recorded at the time of the event they were researching. While time certainly clarifies some data, we live in an age of political spin. Archived data clearly revealed that spin and not researching it kept one from gaining perspective.

So, "if you don't know history you are doomed to repeat it" is coming to fruition. We are returning to the company store days of worker exploitation, adopting a corporate first mentality that always precedes moves toward the fascist approach of governing in that it basically says that the good of the whole comes before the individual and the whole is easily defined as you outline as the what profits the companies that make up our nation (much as was stated by the pleas by our politicians for the bailout) and individual liberties and freedoms are sacrificed in what follows for the good of the state. The state now defines your existence rather than the well being of the citizens defining the mission of the state. Before you know it you live in a backasswords world run by profit, incapable of defending individual rights or even national boundaries when it violates the corporate bottom line or the national need to appropriate funds.

So LP4, I completely understand the nature of U.N.C.'s hypocrisy, I do hear what you are saying in that it is not the creation of all ACC schools or leadership, but I also recognize that what has happened at U.N.C. and many other schools in all of our conferences across the nation is the byproduct of the rational mind pursuing profit as the end all, while simultaneously fighting against any religion and ethical training that would call into question its methods. So we have a campaign against all religion in the name of tolerance and the new P.C. paradigm against any stalwart moral stance. In that atmosphere every abuse may be tolerated as long as it is in the "good of the Nation" and every citizen is good as long as they don't hold anyone accountable, and those who do are now clearly labeled as cranks, trouble makers, insane, and dangerous for simply pointing out the error of our ways. So the new social paradigm of "mind your own business" and "don't make waves" has now replaced the old paradigm of "constant vigilance against all enemies foreign and domestic". God help us!

I'll stop now. I have a bunker to build for my grandchildren. I'm too old, but they'll need it.

You got it.

Are there real and unfortunately systemic problems with the world today? Yes.

But there has always been substantial problems. Such problems have taken the form of segregation, slavery, genocide, religious/political persecution, and general apathy, both here and abroad. None of those are possibly with free and enlightened thought, and at least some of those are the legacies of *every* generation of Americans throughout our history.

Don't get me wrong, this *is* a great country, and it has been for a very long time. It has its faults now, but those faults won't keep it from being great moving forward. I'm sure some day it will fall. All countries do. But, that day is not near.

(05-23-2015 09:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Are there real and unfortunately systemic problems with the world today? Yes.

But there has always been substantial problems. Such problems have taken the form of segregation, slavery, genocide, religious/political persecution, and general apathy, both here and abroad. None of those are possibly with free and enlightened thought, and at least some of those are the legacies of *every* generation of Americans throughout our history.

Don't get me wrong, this *is* a great country, and it has been for a very long time. It has its faults now, but those faults won't keep it from being great moving forward. I'm sure some day it will fall. All countries do. But, that day is not near.

It began failing the moment it decided that the Constitution upon which it was founded was a document that needed to be circumvented, instead of amended. The incursions against the rights of the citizens, and the sovereignty of the nation have only excelerrated under the international trade agreements and subsequent treaties. Even the coin of the realm is under attack by corporations that want to eliminate the freedom you have in using your own currency. If the transactions are in their currency (credit, debit, electronic transfer, etc) then you lose the rights to set to the terms and they gain the right to access and research your accounts. It's very close already to being company script. You aren't nearly as free as I was when growing up. And your generation lives with the possibility of attack by forces from without, and invasion of your privacy if not your very home from forces within. There is a big difference from a state failing, and a state ceasing to be guarantor of your rights. Our government was founded to derive its authority from the consent of the governed. That simply means it is answerable for its decisions to the people whose rights it enforces. I'm just saying that arrangement is changing in fundamental ways. In 1940 it would have taken a powerful enemy years to have occupied or destroyed the U.S. In 2015 it only takes seconds. Nobody dares to do it because we have the technological advantage, thank God, over our adversaries. When that advantage is gone, and it is slipping fast due to our educational system's problems and corporate proctectionism, all bets are off. That could easily be within your lifetime should you live another 20 years.

Do I think catastrophe will happen to us in 20 years? No. But the global and national climate are changing rapidly with regards to trade, technology, and the availability of natural resources. That's a brutal mix.

If anyone want's to discuss this further send me a PM and let's get back to the thread topic. JR

(05-23-2015 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 09:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Are there real and unfortunately systemic problems with the world today? Yes.

But there has always been substantial problems. Such problems have taken the form of segregation, slavery, genocide, religious/political persecution, and general apathy, both here and abroad. None of those are possibly with free and enlightened thought, and at least some of those are the legacies of *every* generation of Americans throughout our history.

Don't get me wrong, this *is* a great country, and it has been for a very long time. It has its faults now, but those faults won't keep it from being great moving forward. I'm sure some day it will fall. All countries do. But, that day is not near.

It began failing the moment it decided that the Constitution upon which it was founded was a document that needed to be circumvented, instead of amended. The incursions against the rights of the citizens, and the sovereignty of the nation have only excelerrated under the international trade agreements and subsequent treaties. Even the coin of the realm is under attack by corporations that want to eliminate the freedom you have in using your own currency. If the transactions are in their currency (credit, debit, electronic transfer, etc) then you lose the rights to set to the terms and they gain the right to access and research your accounts. It's very close already to being company script. You aren't nearly as free as I was when growing up. And your generation lives with the possibility of attack by forces from without, and invasion of your privacy if not your very home from forces within. There is a big difference from a state failing, and a state ceasing to be guarantor of your rights. Our government was founded to derive its authority from the consent of the governed. That simply means it is answerable for its decisions to the people whose rights it enforces. I'm just saying that arrangement is changing in fundamental ways. In 1940 it would have taken a powerful enemy years to have occupied or destroyed the U.S. In 2015 it only takes seconds. Nobody dares to do it because we have the technological advantage, thank God, over our adversaries. When that advantage is gone, and it is slipping fast due to our educational system's problems and corporate proctectionism, all bets are off. That could easily be within your lifetime should you live another 20 years.

Do I think catastrophe will happen to us in 20 years? No. But the global and national climate are changing rapidly with regards to trade, technology, and the availability of natural resources. That's a brutal mix.

1. Nobody knows what the Constitution means - not even the guys that wrote it. That's the brilliance of the documents and why it lasts. It's incredibly vague.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by occupation, but there was no cyber infrastructure to occupy in the 40's if that's what you mean.

3. Credit has been around since the Renaissance. Admittedly, you're clearly talking about trends and marginal differences, and to that extent, I agree. We don't save enough and, as a country, we are in a state of perpetual debt (individually and the government), but that's not a new trend. It also actually isn't even inherently bad. It all depends on your RoI and the terms of the debt. However, usually it's a bad thing. I agree.

4. As for America's standing in the world, it's very hard to perpetually keep markets out of equilibrium. That isn't a generational issue. It's an economics issue.