(09-02-2016 02:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 09:39 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) We already have [partial members].
2) The B1G JUST added ND as a partial in hockey.
3) The B1G added JHU in lacrosse 2-3 years ago.
4) The Pac 12, Big XII, and BIG EAST all have partials.

(09-02-2016 11:05 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Ok, no more partials in revenue sports that people actually watch. ND is a unique exception and no other school comes close to their national interest and fan following. It's a unique and mutually beneficial arrangement that will not be repeated with the likes of Georgetown. Play them out of conference. Great. There is a reason why no p5 conference will do that with a school not named ND - it destroys conference unity and identity. Why any former Big East fan would want to repeat the mistakes of the past is beyond looney, much like chickens supporting Colonel Sanders. Thankfully, the current ACC leadership is opposed to becoming Big East 2.0.

I see the logic in Ren Hoek's position. That's not to say that the ACC couldn't make more money with NZMOrange's idea, but profit - especially short-term - isn't everything.

By the way, Ren: the South Carolina Gamecocks are also partial members... of C-USA... in soccer. Laugh all you want.

Once again, I'm not pushing for Georgetown. I fully understand that the ACC will make the mistake of not adding them and/or is not in a position to add them - and won't be for the foreseeable future. I was and am pushing for Texas, because I do think that the Horns will be in play around 2025 - at least if the reports that Fox and ESPN are on the verge of suing the Big XII are even partially true. And, I don't think that the ACC could possibly be dumb enough to turn them down, unless they demanded something completely insane.

My earlier comment was that schools like Georgetown, Villanova, and JHU would help the ACC as partials, so the theory that all partials are bad is false. I supported that position by claiming that GU would bring more money into the conference (on a per school basis), while maintaining the integrity of the league's geography and increasing its overall academic and athletic competitiveness. The counter argument to a partial like GU (which I'm using as a proxy for any net accretive partial add) seemed to overwhelmingly be a blanket "partials are bad" without any supporting reasoning other than when the BIG EAST was in a completely different situation, "the BIG EAST'S partial membership structure led to paralysis, which doomed the conference." Given how different the ACC's situation is, I don't see how the comparison is valid.

But to one of your points, for whatever it's worth, an east coast private, religious school that's good at basketball and has existing history/rivalries with about half the ACC doesn't exactly scream "not a cultural fit for the ACC" to me.

(09-02-2016 01:28 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  EDIT: You actually called it "the rule" when you said "There, all members are in for all sports (with one notable exception that proves the rule)."

(sigh) I invoked a familiar old expression: 'the exception that proves the rule'. In that expression the definition of the word 'rule' just refers to a pattern--a common practice, a general approach.

You used the word 'rule' in a different sense when throwing it around out of this context. You represented me as speaking of some sort of legal requirement, like a league by-law of some sort, in contrast to exactly the kind of idea I was sharing with you.

This fallacy you attempted was equivocation for the purpose of creating a straw man.

If the expression I quoted was unfamiliar to you, your equivocation was likely unintentional. To keep pushing a straw man fallacy after I twice clarify my meaning for you, though, is just rigid and tiresome.



My observation stands. The ACC has a common practice, a philosophy, an approach that it likes to take.

That approach makes a priority of creating a league identity that remains as consistent as possible across all sports. If we turn on the TV and see Duke playing Miami, we know we are watching an ACC event regardless of whether the sport is men's basketball or women's tennis. We know because both Duke and Miami are ACC schools. There is no need to turn to a friend and ask 'Which league does Duke play in for tennis again?'

The ACC approach offers benefits. The example illustrates an important one: enhancement of league identity in mass communication.

Whether one likes the ACC's philosophy or not, there is no question that it exists. You admit as much yourself, nzm, in your own posts. In arguing that the ACC should change its approach to allow schools to join for individual sports in a more ad hoc, 'opportunistic' way recalling the Old Big East, you acknowledge that there is an approach to change.

We are in agreement then that an ACC philosophy exists, and that in practice it works pretty much as I described above.

(09-02-2016 11:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  My post was in response to posters who would oppose Texas as a partial because they feel that partials are categorically bad.

I doubt many people are saying 'partials are categorically bad'. The idea is that, generally, partial memberships are good to avoid.

There's a difference.

Who thinks partials are good to avoid? ACC member schools. Most member schools in most P5 conferences. Also most of their media partners.

The goal in avoiding them is consistency of conference identity as far as possible. When you see Illinois play Michigan State on TV, love 'em or hate 'em, it's a Big Ten game. Cal and Oregon State? PAC. Duke and Miami? ACC. When you see these pairings, you don't ask first which sport you are watching and then ask which league each school plays that sport in. If it's Arkansas versus LSU, it's an SEC game whether it's football, basketball or tiddly-winks.

Conferences like for viewers to experience things this way. So do media partners.

Understanding the qualifier--'as far as possible'--explains why you do find the occasional exception. Exceptions are made with reluctance and remain exactly that: exceptions. ND and JHU-style arrangements do not represent the usual practice for good reason.

You can, if you wish, prefer that partial memberships were embraced. You can prefer the ad hoc ways of the Old Big East. If you do, yours will likely be a minority opinion, but you're welcome to it.

The approach that will be taken in the ACC will be the one that its member schools and media partners choose to take. The approach they take now is to encourage all-in memberships and avoid ad hoc except in very special circumstances.

So far, most people in this forum seem to be cool with that.