(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)Ragu Wrote:  True the sec has a huge bias but Ohio state isn't sec. They lost to va tech and looked like crap vs teams like navy and pen st and they got in


That wouldn't happen for fsu. The acc has a huge negative perception and it is a big problem. And that isn't on schools like fsu and Clemson to fix. It's on the leaches to do their part

The acc hurts fsu right now.

FSU was happy to join the "leeches" when it did because it let them be the big fish in the little pond, and have an easy path to a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl. Those "leeches" haven't changed, and they aren't likely to. They are today pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The pond is still little. What is different today is that there is a playoff berth at stake, not just a bowl berth.

There isn't going to be any "fix" for the ACC relative to the CFP by somehow getting the other league members to change their spots and become something they are not now, and never have been. The only way the ACC will get appreciably stronger in football is to add more strong football teams and only strong football teams.

If that isn't going to happen for whatever reason, then the only decision left for schools like FSU and Clemson is whether to stay and accept the status quo or leave.

FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

(04-21-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)Ragu Wrote:  True the sec has a huge bias but Ohio state isn't sec. They lost to va tech and looked like crap vs teams like navy and pen st and they got in


That wouldn't happen for fsu. The acc has a huge negative perception and it is a big problem. And that isn't on schools like fsu and Clemson to fix. It's on the leaches to do their part

The acc hurts fsu right now.

FSU was happy to join the "leeches" when it did because it let them be the big fish in the little pond, and have an easy path to a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl. Those "leeches" haven't changed, and they aren't likely to. They are today pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The pond is still little. What is different today is that there is a playoff berth at stake, not just a bowl berth.

There isn't going to be any "fix" for the ACC relative to the CFP by somehow getting the other league members to change their spots and become something they are not now, and never have been. The only way the ACC will get appreciably stronger in football is to add more strong football teams and only strong football teams.

If that isn't going to happen for whatever reason, then the only decision left for schools like FSU and Clemson is whether to stay and accept the status quo or leave.

FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

When else have they had the chance to go to another conference? The SEC pussed out and took Missouri instead of them the last time around? These are imaginary chances to leave that you are talking about here. They are stuck in the ACC. If a spot in the SEC opened up knowing what they know now, they would be gone a in second.

It is on the ACC. Failure of leadership and programs not putting in the work and resources to get good in football are what are hurting the confernece money wise. FSU is not the problem.

(04-21-2015 02:29 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:17 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm well aware when the BCS started. I was only suggesting that FSU was joining a conference they, and everybody else, knew they would dominate. FSU wasn't ducking good competition OOC. It was about the only place it could find any. The ACC wasn't "better then". It was as mediocre as it has always been. Every once in a blue moon one team or another would have a good year, and get relatively high in the rankings until they played somebody good. Then they'd get their butts whipped more often than not.

My bigger point is that, IMO, if you are waiting for the schools that have been mediocre for 40 years to start getting better, you are likely to be disappointed.

FYI, ACC had the highest conference payout at the time. Now it is the last.

So one could argue it isn't the same....there was more promise then.


I don't see why UNC and UVA can't get better? Bobby Bowden always said UNC was a sleeping giant.

There are so many schools over the last 3 decades who where nowhere and became great. ACC has 14 schools....odds are a few of them could make a similar jump. The culture just has to allow for it.

So many of the people on here and elsewhere are under 25 or just didnt know college football back then. That is where you get the garbage on FSU ducking the SEC and wanting the ACC because it was easier and such.

It's revisionist history to say the least.

Plus they were playing teams like Georgia Tech and North Carolina instead of fricken Boston College and Syracuse. They didnt sign up for NE schools in 1990.

No, they didn't do that until 2004.

(04-21-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:29 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:17 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm well aware when the BCS started. I was only suggesting that FSU was joining a conference they, and everybody else, knew they would dominate. FSU wasn't ducking good competition OOC. It was about the only place it could find any. The ACC wasn't "better then". It was as mediocre as it has always been. Every once in a blue moon one team or another would have a good year, and get relatively high in the rankings until they played somebody good. Then they'd get their butts whipped more often than not.

My bigger point is that, IMO, if you are waiting for the schools that have been mediocre for 40 years to start getting better, you are likely to be disappointed.

FYI, ACC had the highest conference payout at the time. Now it is the last.

So one could argue it isn't the same....there was more promise then.


I don't see why UNC and UVA can't get better? Bobby Bowden always said UNC was a sleeping giant.

There are so many schools over the last 3 decades who where nowhere and became great. ACC has 14 schools....odds are a few of them could make a similar jump. The culture just has to allow for it.

So many of the people on here and elsewhere are under 25 or just didnt know college football back then. That is where you get the garbage on FSU ducking the SEC and wanting the ACC because it was easier and such.

It's revisionist history to say the least.

Plus they were playing teams like Georgia Tech and North Carolina instead of fricken Boston College and Syracuse. They didnt sign up for NE schools in 1990.

No, they didn't do that until 2004.

There was no choice in 2004. They wanted Miami only but the votes werent there for that option...

Again you need to brush up on your history of college football. You dont seem to know very much.

Then there is the fact that everyone was using 12 as the number to play a title game so the schools were needed then....

They didnt want to hardly ever play GT and UNC while playing BC and Cuse every year. THat much is very obvious.

(04-21-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)Ragu Wrote:  True the sec has a huge bias but Ohio state isn't sec. They lost to va tech and looked like crap vs teams like navy and pen st and they got in


That wouldn't happen for fsu. The acc has a huge negative perception and it is a big problem. And that isn't on schools like fsu and Clemson to fix. It's on the leaches to do their part

The acc hurts fsu right now.

FSU was happy to join the "leeches" when it did because it let them be the big fish in the little pond, and have an easy path to a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl. Those "leeches" haven't changed, and they aren't likely to. They are today pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The pond is still little. What is different today is that there is a playoff berth at stake, not just a bowl berth.

There isn't going to be any "fix" for the ACC relative to the CFP by somehow getting the other league members to change their spots and become something they are not now, and never have been. The only way the ACC will get appreciably stronger in football is to add more strong football teams and only strong football teams.

If that isn't going to happen for whatever reason, then the only decision left for schools like FSU and Clemson is whether to stay and accept the status quo or leave.

FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

Yes, it is a research consortium. It is an association of universities that work together.

No, I never said they 'share research' ....your words, not mine.

Actually, it was ALL ACADEMICS for why Barron signed the GOR...he was obsessed with the academic side.

The league hasn't grown.....believe what you want, it is stagnant.

I totally agree with you....FSU has crap leadership. They got suckered by Swofford (in just their latest screw up) and a dictator president who bailed right after he trick our BOT into the GOR sign up. Agree.....ONE of my problems IS leadership at FSU. They suck.


But they don't suck as much as Swofford.

You are also wrong about my beef with the ACC.....It is a dying conference that won't change.


Big East part 2.

(04-21-2015 02:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:29 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:17 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm well aware when the BCS started. I was only suggesting that FSU was joining a conference they, and everybody else, knew they would dominate. FSU wasn't ducking good competition OOC. It was about the only place it could find any. The ACC wasn't "better then". It was as mediocre as it has always been. Every once in a blue moon one team or another would have a good year, and get relatively high in the rankings until they played somebody good. Then they'd get their butts whipped more often than not.

My bigger point is that, IMO, if you are waiting for the schools that have been mediocre for 40 years to start getting better, you are likely to be disappointed.

FYI, ACC had the highest conference payout at the time. Now it is the last.

So one could argue it isn't the same....there was more promise then.


I don't see why UNC and UVA can't get better? Bobby Bowden always said UNC was a sleeping giant.

There are so many schools over the last 3 decades who where nowhere and became great. ACC has 14 schools....odds are a few of them could make a similar jump. The culture just has to allow for it.

So many of the people on here and elsewhere are under 25 or just didnt know college football back then. That is where you get the garbage on FSU ducking the SEC and wanting the ACC because it was easier and such.

It's revisionist history to say the least.

Plus they were playing teams like Georgia Tech and North Carolina instead of fricken Boston College and Syracuse. They didnt sign up for NE schools in 1990.

No, they didn't do that until 2004.

There was no choice in 2004. They wanted Miami only but the votes werent there for that option...

Again you need to brush up on your history of college football. You dont seem to know very much.

Then there is the fact that everyone was using 12 as the number to play a title game so the schools were needed then....

They didnt want to hardly ever play GT and UNC while playing BC and Cuse every year. THat much is very obvious.

Of course there was a choice. When the Miami only proposal was voted down, you (FSU) could have let it stop there. The votes weren't there for the alternate proposal to also invite BC and Syracuse without FSU agreeing to it. Only Duke and UNC were opposed until the Virginia legislature stepped in. Your no vote could have stopped that. You might not have been in love with that choice, but you made it, and nobody was holding a gun to your head. Now you are complaining about the logical consequences of your decision. Frankly, the complaining is getting pretty old.

I'm not going to partake in this current discussion, but I will address a remark ken d made.

If the SEC had offered FSU an invite during this latest round of expansion, FSU would be in the SEC. There was overwhelming support from the FSU BoT at that time. There likely still is more than enough support to go to the SEC were an offer to be extended.

Just wanted to clarify some obvious misinformation.

(04-21-2015 03:16 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I'm not going to partake in this current discussion, but I will address a remark ken d made.

If the SEC had offered FSU an invite during this latest round of expansion, FSU would be in the SEC. There was overwhelming support from the FSU BoT at that time. There likely still is more than enough support to go to the SEC were an offer to be extended.

Just wanted to clarify some obvious misinformation.

I don't doubt that for a second. And I never said or suggested otherwise.

In 1991 FSU had the opportunity to join The SEC and turned it down. Instead FSU joined The ACC. Bobby Bowden once said it was like "having to choose from between caviar and ribs." On the Tim Brando Show on Coach Bowden once said: The reason FSU joined The ACC was it was an "easier path to the National Title."

(04-21-2015 02:57 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)Ragu Wrote:  True the sec has a huge bias but Ohio state isn't sec. They lost to va tech and looked like crap vs teams like navy and pen st and they got in


That wouldn't happen for fsu. The acc has a huge negative perception and it is a big problem. And that isn't on schools like fsu and Clemson to fix. It's on the leaches to do their part

The acc hurts fsu right now.

FSU was happy to join the "leeches" when it did because it let them be the big fish in the little pond, and have an easy path to a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl. Those "leeches" haven't changed, and they aren't likely to. They are today pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The pond is still little. What is different today is that there is a playoff berth at stake, not just a bowl berth.

There isn't going to be any "fix" for the ACC relative to the CFP by somehow getting the other league members to change their spots and become something they are not now, and never have been. The only way the ACC will get appreciably stronger in football is to add more strong football teams and only strong football teams.

If that isn't going to happen for whatever reason, then the only decision left for schools like FSU and Clemson is whether to stay and accept the status quo or leave.

FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

Yes, it is a research consortium. It is an association of universities that work together.

No, I never said they 'share research' ....your words, not mine.

Actually, it was ALL ACADEMICS for why Barron signed the GOR...he was obsessed with the academic side.

The league hasn't grown.....believe what you want, it is stagnant.

I totally agree with you....FSU has crap leadership. They got suckered by Swofford (in just their latest screw up) and a dictator president who bailed right after he trick our BOT into the GOR sign up. Agree.....ONE of my problems IS leadership at FSU. They suck.


But they don't suck as much as Swofford.

You are also wrong about my beef with the ACC.....It is a dying conference that won't change.


Big East part 2.

Do you know what the CIC is/does? The members agree to share library resources. They share information technology / software. They use their combined purchasing power to get better prices on their operating supplies. And they cooperate on semester abroad planning and execution. No mention of research. It's basically a purchasing coop.

Where'd you get that caviar quote?

(04-21-2015 04:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  In 1991 FSU had the opportunity to join The SEC and turned it down. Instead FSU joined The ACC. Bobby Bowden once said it was like "having to choose from between caviar and ribs." On the Tim Brando Show on Coach Bowden once said: The reason FSU joined The ACC was it was an "easier path to the National Title."

That's been taken out of context by so many that didn't observe the situation when it happened. If fsu wanted an easier road they wouldn't have scheduled Miami ever year. No sec team did and they were better than all of them too.

And fsu played the best sec team in Florida anyways.

(04-21-2015 03:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:29 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:17 PM)nole Wrote:  FYI, ACC had the highest conference payout at the time. Now it is the last.

So one could argue it isn't the same....there was more promise then.


I don't see why UNC and UVA can't get better? Bobby Bowden always said UNC was a sleeping giant.

There are so many schools over the last 3 decades who where nowhere and became great. ACC has 14 schools....odds are a few of them could make a similar jump. The culture just has to allow for it.

So many of the people on here and elsewhere are under 25 or just didnt know college football back then. That is where you get the garbage on FSU ducking the SEC and wanting the ACC because it was easier and such.

It's revisionist history to say the least.

Plus they were playing teams like Georgia Tech and North Carolina instead of fricken Boston College and Syracuse. They didnt sign up for NE schools in 1990.

No, they didn't do that until 2004.

There was no choice in 2004. They wanted Miami only but the votes werent there for that option...

Again you need to brush up on your history of college football. You dont seem to know very much.

Then there is the fact that everyone was using 12 as the number to play a title game so the schools were needed then....

They didnt want to hardly ever play GT and UNC while playing BC and Cuse every year. THat much is very obvious.

Of course there was a choice. When the Miami only proposal was voted down, you (FSU) could have let it stop there. The votes weren't there for the alternate proposal to also invite BC and Syracuse without FSU agreeing to it. Only Duke and UNC were opposed until the Virginia legislature stepped in. Your no vote could have stopped that. You might not have been in love with that choice, but you made it, and nobody was holding a gun to your head. Now you are complaining about the logical consequences of your decision. Frankly, the complaining is getting pretty old.

There was no "Miami" proposal.

The intial negotiations started under Gene Corrigan years before Swofford was hired. Paul Dee, Les Robinson, and FSU AD at the time were instrumental in talking with Miami from nearly the day that FSU joined the ACC. Dee wanted to bring along Syracuse and BC because he felt loyalty toward them fro supporting Miami's move to the Big East. This deal percolated for several years.

When Swofford took over many of the original players were gone from their posts and he thought Corrigan's deal was okay. The problem was that Duke and UNC tipped off VT to the entire thing and then announced in advance they would not support expansion.

That put VT in the position to blackmail UVa. There was never a vote to add just Miami. Only a vote to add Miami and VT. Duke and UNC could have kept VT out, but wanted VT in rather than Syracuse as VT would help fill their football stadium and not threaten their basketball.

NC State then stopped the vote on a 12th by proposing to pursue Notre Dame. The result was Syracuse and BC being embarrassed in public. Duke, UNC, and NC State effectively ran that rodeo with an assist from WF. For all practical purposes, FSU was just along for the ride at that point.

Yes they did talk adding Miami only as an option. Fsu couldn't get any support on it though. The rest is pretty accurate but you are wrong on them never talking Miami only

(04-21-2015 06:06 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:29 PM)Ragu Wrote:  So many of the people on here and elsewhere are under 25 or just didnt know college football back then. That is where you get the garbage on FSU ducking the SEC and wanting the ACC because it was easier and such.

It's revisionist history to say the least.

Plus they were playing teams like Georgia Tech and North Carolina instead of fricken Boston College and Syracuse. They didnt sign up for NE schools in 1990.

No, they didn't do that until 2004.

There was no choice in 2004. They wanted Miami only but the votes werent there for that option...

Again you need to brush up on your history of college football. You dont seem to know very much.

Then there is the fact that everyone was using 12 as the number to play a title game so the schools were needed then....

They didnt want to hardly ever play GT and UNC while playing BC and Cuse every year. THat much is very obvious.

Of course there was a choice. When the Miami only proposal was voted down, you (FSU) could have let it stop there. The votes weren't there for the alternate proposal to also invite BC and Syracuse without FSU agreeing to it. Only Duke and UNC were opposed until the Virginia legislature stepped in. Your no vote could have stopped that. You might not have been in love with that choice, but you made it, and nobody was holding a gun to your head. Now you are complaining about the logical consequences of your decision. Frankly, the complaining is getting pretty old.

There was no "Miami" proposal.

The intial negotiations started under Gene Corrigan years before Swofford was hired. Paul Dee, Les Robinson, and FSU AD at the time were instrumental in talking with Miami from nearly the day that FSU joined the ACC. Dee wanted to bring along Syracuse and BC because he felt loyalty toward them fro supporting Miami's move to the Big East. This deal percolated for several years.

When Swofford took over many of the original players were gone from their posts and he thought Corrigan's deal was okay. The problem was that Duke and UNC tipped off VT to the entire thing and then announced in advance they would not support expansion.

That put VT in the position to blackmail UVa. There was never a vote to add just Miami. Only a vote to add Miami and VT. Duke and UNC could have kept VT out, but wanted VT in rather than Syracuse as VT would help fill their football stadium and not threaten their basketball.

NC State then stopped the vote on a 12th by proposing to pursue Notre Dame. The result was Syracuse and BC being embarrassed in public. Duke, UNC, and NC State effectively ran that rodeo with an assist from WF. For all practical purposes, FSU was just along for the ride at that point.

Was that 2003?

(04-21-2015 04:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:57 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  FSU was happy to join the "leeches" when it did because it let them be the big fish in the little pond, and have an easy path to a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl. Those "leeches" haven't changed, and they aren't likely to. They are today pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The pond is still little. What is different today is that there is a playoff berth at stake, not just a bowl berth.

There isn't going to be any "fix" for the ACC relative to the CFP by somehow getting the other league members to change their spots and become something they are not now, and never have been. The only way the ACC will get appreciably stronger in football is to add more strong football teams and only strong football teams.

If that isn't going to happen for whatever reason, then the only decision left for schools like FSU and Clemson is whether to stay and accept the status quo or leave.

FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

Yes, it is a research consortium. It is an association of universities that work together.

No, I never said they 'share research' ....your words, not mine.

Actually, it was ALL ACADEMICS for why Barron signed the GOR...he was obsessed with the academic side.

The league hasn't grown.....believe what you want, it is stagnant.

I totally agree with you....FSU has crap leadership. They got suckered by Swofford (in just their latest screw up) and a dictator president who bailed right after he trick our BOT into the GOR sign up. Agree.....ONE of my problems IS leadership at FSU. They suck.


But they don't suck as much as Swofford.

You are also wrong about my beef with the ACC.....It is a dying conference that won't change.


Big East part 2.

Do you know what the CIC is/does? The members agree to share library resources. They share information technology / software. They use their combined purchasing power to get better prices on their operating supplies. And they cooperate on semester abroad planning and execution. No mention of research. It's basically a purchasing coop.

http://www.cic.net/research

"CIC universities engage in $8.4 billion in funded research each year. Leaders from our member universities are exploring ways to promote greater strategic engagement across the spectrum of the research enterprise to leverage and build upon the significant resources and research facilities. Additionally, CIC universities engage in the following research-oriented initiatives:"


Research consortium.....or association.

That is what the CIC is...and there are MANY mentions of research.....specifically research cooperation...partnerships.


Not sure what you are trying to debate....but it isn't going well for you.

(04-21-2015 06:20 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yes they did talk adding Miami only as an option. Fsu couldn't get any support on it though. The rest is pretty accurate but you are wrong on them never talking Miami only

The AD's talking about adding Miami only is not the same as a vote. I was focusing on the actual votes. A lot of scenarios were tossed around, but Miami did not want to come alone - that was their thing and Dee fully expected Syracuse and BC as that was the plan. He and Swofford among others personally promised that to Jake Croumuthal.

They never realized what Duke and UNC were up to as those two used their fake opposition to expansion to change the overall deal. Brilliant play on their part - they got everything they wanted Miami and VT without Syracuse. Why do you think VT is in their division?

(04-21-2015 06:28 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:06 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  No, they didn't do that until 2004.

There was no choice in 2004. They wanted Miami only but the votes werent there for that option...

Again you need to brush up on your history of college football. You dont seem to know very much.

Then there is the fact that everyone was using 12 as the number to play a title game so the schools were needed then....

They didnt want to hardly ever play GT and UNC while playing BC and Cuse every year. THat much is very obvious.

Of course there was a choice. When the Miami only proposal was voted down, you (FSU) could have let it stop there. The votes weren't there for the alternate proposal to also invite BC and Syracuse without FSU agreeing to it. Only Duke and UNC were opposed until the Virginia legislature stepped in. Your no vote could have stopped that. You might not have been in love with that choice, but you made it, and nobody was holding a gun to your head. Now you are complaining about the logical consequences of your decision. Frankly, the complaining is getting pretty old.

There was no "Miami" proposal.

The intial negotiations started under Gene Corrigan years before Swofford was hired. Paul Dee, Les Robinson, and FSU AD at the time were instrumental in talking with Miami from nearly the day that FSU joined the ACC. Dee wanted to bring along Syracuse and BC because he felt loyalty toward them fro supporting Miami's move to the Big East. This deal percolated for several years.

When Swofford took over many of the original players were gone from their posts and he thought Corrigan's deal was okay. The problem was that Duke and UNC tipped off VT to the entire thing and then announced in advance they would not support expansion.

That put VT in the position to blackmail UVa. There was never a vote to add just Miami. Only a vote to add Miami and VT. Duke and UNC could have kept VT out, but wanted VT in rather than Syracuse as VT would help fill their football stadium and not threaten their basketball.

NC State then stopped the vote on a 12th by proposing to pursue Notre Dame. The result was Syracuse and BC being embarrassed in public. Duke, UNC, and NC State effectively ran that rodeo with an assist from WF. For all practical purposes, FSU was just along for the ride at that point.

Was that 2003?

Yes, NC State's Chancellor was on the ND Board, she was in Paris at the time of the phone call. After UNC and Duke had engineered VT's power play against UVa Swofford was so pissed he almost stroked out and needed to be taken to Moses Cone. MAF (State's Chancellor) then pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Les Robinson - NC State AD had been part of the Miami, BC, Syracuse deal from the beginning, but she did not back that either and wanted ND. She wanted ND and stopped the process for a year to approach ND, with Syracuse humiliated, BC kept its mouth shut and took the ride in 2004.

Gene Corrigan wanted ND before Swofford, but the trick was how to get to them. As has been mentioned before, there are a lot of unseen ties between ND and the NC and VA ACC schools.

(04-21-2015 10:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:20 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yes they did talk adding Miami only as an option. Fsu couldn't get any support on it though. The rest is pretty accurate but you are wrong on them never talking Miami only

The AD's talking about adding Miami only is not the same as a vote. I was focusing on the actual votes. A lot of scenarios were tossed around, but Miami did not want to come alone - that was their thing and Dee fully expected Syracuse and BC as that was the plan. He and Swofford among others personally promised that to Jake Croumuthal.

They never realized what Duke and UNC were up to as those two used their fake opposition to expansion to change the overall deal. Brilliant play on their part - they got everything they wanted Miami and VT without Syracuse. Why do you think VT is in their division?

You are preaching to our side here. Unc duke and uva run this conference which is why it has been horribly run in terms of football and has stayed basketball centric

(04-21-2015 08:39 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 04:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:57 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:11 PM)nole Wrote:  FSU thought the ACC would GROW.

It didn't....it is stagnant.

No academic growth to mirror the Big 10 CIC research consortium.

No movement in closing (never going to catch) football gap with SEC and other conferences (some schools better...some worse, atmospheres same...but compared to SEC/B1G, same gap there)

FSU saw great potential......what happened was resistance to change above ALL ELSE. A refusal to grow or change.

Still just a basketball conference only.

The CIC isn't a research consortium. There is no shared research. And I really doubt that FSU's motivation for joining the ACC was academic in any significant sense. And the league has grown - substantially. Just not in a way that suits you.

Nevertheless, FSU has had plenty of opportunities over the years to rethink its decision to join the ACC. And yet, despite this stagnation, this "resistance to change above all else" on the ACC's part, FSU has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the league. Your beef isn't with the ACC. They are doing what they've always done. Your beef is with your own administration. They must not see things the way you do.

Yes, it is a research consortium. It is an association of universities that work together.

No, I never said they 'share research' ....your words, not mine.

Actually, it was ALL ACADEMICS for why Barron signed the GOR...he was obsessed with the academic side.

The league hasn't grown.....believe what you want, it is stagnant.

I totally agree with you....FSU has crap leadership. They got suckered by Swofford (in just their latest screw up) and a dictator president who bailed right after he trick our BOT into the GOR sign up. Agree.....ONE of my problems IS leadership at FSU. They suck.


But they don't suck as much as Swofford.

You are also wrong about my beef with the ACC.....It is a dying conference that won't change.


Big East part 2.

Do you know what the CIC is/does? The members agree to share library resources. They share information technology / software. They use their combined purchasing power to get better prices on their operating supplies. And they cooperate on semester abroad planning and execution. No mention of research. It's basically a purchasing coop.

http://www.cic.net/research

"CIC universities engage in $8.4 billion in funded research each year. Leaders from our member universities are exploring ways to promote greater strategic engagement across the spectrum of the research enterprise to leverage and build upon the significant resources and research facilities. Additionally, CIC universities engage in the following research-oriented initiatives:"


Research consortium.....or association.

That is what the CIC is...and there are MANY mentions of research.....specifically research cooperation...partnerships.


Not sure what you are trying to debate....but it isn't going well for you.

FWIW: The CIC does not distribute research dollars nor does it campaign for its members. It's just a club that shares research material. Here is a link:

http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/1511...he-cic-are

Please note that the site is a Michigan SB Nation site. Granted, not the be all end all but they seem to be knowledgeable about their own university and this particular topic. CIC is not driving conference realignment. It's sports.