(07-09-2018 11:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 07:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 05:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  We sports fans are prone to recency bias when it comes to realignment questions. We tend to assume that the way things are today is the way they will always be going forward. For that matter, we also think that the way things are today is the way they have largely been in the past.

The Coastal division is seen as significantly weaker, and in the current cycle of the last few years it no doubt is. But what was the situation in 2003, when the league first had to go to divisions? Back then, the opposite was true. Based on the teams' performance in the 10 years before division assignments were made, the Coastal was significantly stronger. These are their win totals during that period, ranked in order from most wins to fewest.

.1...Florida State.....103
.2...Miami................96
.3...Virginia Tech.......92
.4...Virginia..............76
.5...Clemson.............68
......Georgia Tech......68
......NC State............68
.8...North Carolina....65
.9...Boston College....64
10..Maryland............61
11..Wake Forest........42
12..Duke..................26

Three of the top four, and five of the top eight were placed in the Coastal Division. Nobody back then was thinking that Clemson was going to be a consistent national contender as they have become over the past 7 years under Dabo Swinney. Nobody was expecting Miami to fall asleep for a decade or more.

I think we would be making a big mistake if we think the next ten years will produce the same results as the last ten. And I think we should be very slow to change division alignments based on recent performance. If we want to change to facilitate traditional rivalries, and are willing to live with whatever temporary imbalances that result from that for the sake of the long term view, I'm OK with that.

How are you controlling for the fact that VT, BC, and Miami were not in the ACC in the years you are using for comparison? Everyone in the ACC was having to play FSU every year, but BC and VT did not. Moreover you are talking about results from 15 to 25 years ago.

Setting aside the wins and losses the great disparity is with recruiting footprint. Georgia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are massively superior to Kentucky, New York, and Massachusetts in producing football recruits.

Why would I control for something that was not, and could not be, relevant to a decision made in 2003? I wasn't making any comparison at all. Just using the same data that was available to the members at the time - the overall records over a substantial period of time of all 12 members who played in conferences that were pretty equal to each other in strength. The point is, no one was setting up divisions designed to favor one or the other, and how the various team's subsequent performance ebbs and flows doesn't change that.

If you truly believe that I have some beach property in Boone I want to sell you, especially after the last expansion.

One of the advantages of not rooting for any particular school is that I don't have to buy into the mythology of victimhood that is so pervasive in the old ACC. I don't, for example, have to buy the idea that UNC and Duke, which were powerless to prevent the other 7 members from forcing expansion, were nevertheless so powerful that they could then impose their will on the now 10 other members to create a division that favored themselves at the expense of schools like Clemson and Florida State.

I would be curious to know what those schools imagined the divisions would look like when they decided to expand? And then when they decided to further expand? Are they that bad at counting votes? Or maybe they just didn't think that far ahead.

Ken, one of the advantages I have is that I have been able to listen to former UNC AD Bill Cobey explain the nature of the ACC from his perspective as well as his father's perspective. His father was AD at MD from 55-70. MD used to run the ACC with Duke, but from time Bob James retired, MD was pushed out by UNC and now the push out is complete. MD didn't leave the ACC because of money, they left because of UNC and Duke, the same reason South Carolina left. It's a weird twist of fate to have heard the recollections of 5 ACC Athletic Directors, representing 4 schools.

As an outside observer you would only see the surface of things and the true inner nature of how the ACC works and who runs now and in the past would not be something you would have an occasion to hear about unless you ran in very specific circles and caught very specific people half drunk on certain golf courses. NC State is always its own worst enemy - that much is true, but that does not change the fact that UNC will spare no effort to stick it to any rival save Duke. The reason they don't stick Duke is Duke has ALL the dirt on Carolina people while Duke's people are harder to touch.

Since I was only nine years old when the ACC formed, I wouldn't have been old enough to understand a very basic question. If UNC and Duke were such evil and Machiavellian schemers and bullies, why would schools like Clemson, Maryland, NC State and South Carolina, who had known and been conference mates with them for decades, invite them to join them in this new conference? Didn't they know then that they would be powerless against them for decades into the future?

(07-09-2018 01:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Since I was only nine years old when the ACC formed, I wouldn't have been old enough to understand a very basic question. If UNC and Duke were such evil and Machiavellian schemers and bullies, why would schools like Clemson, Maryland, NC State and South Carolina, who had known and been conference mates with them for decades, invite them to join them in this new conference? Didn't they know then that they would be powerless against them for decades into the future?

You need not be evil to be powerful and that power have affects on the weaker. The United States is not evil, but things done in the US best interest have not always been in the best interest of others. Maryland never imagined UNC would rise to take power in the conference. UNC never had that power from time we all began to associate in 1907.


UNC's power within the conference is not realized in full until Swofford is Commissioner. Once Corrigan exits, it's UNC's and Duke's show because they can use North Carolina political pressure to get NC State's vote, meaning they can block anything. The power to block is the power.


And since when did the advice in The Prince become a bad thing? Are any of the schools in this for altruistic reasons? Of course not. Michigan and Ohio State are the same way in the Big 10. Texas and OU are the same way in the B12.


The little and the weak get **** on. That's nature.

When the ACC formed, UNC was not running anything. As with the Southern Confernece, Maryland formed the ACC along with Clemson and Duke for football purposes. South Carolina came along immediately. Once MD had four votes, they invited UNC and NC State. NC State and Duke requested that Wake Forest be brought along. Now you have 7 members but knowing that UNC was behind West Va., and VT, MD pulled in UVa with their signing point being that they would be the only school from the State of Va, no VT, no William & Mary, no Washington & Lee. MD knew Duke would go soft on VT, that's why the vote to add VT died 4-4 with all NC schools voting for VT. MD had gotten UVa into the conference ahead of UNC's motion. West Va of course could nto get a second.

UNC ran NOTHING in the conference until well into Gene Corrigan's tenure. Bob James from MD, was the first conference commissioner and did not allow UNC to run roughshod and Duke had shot it's leadership wad on the 800 SAT rule back in 1962. Essentially Maryland ran the show for the first 20 years of the ACC.

It's not until you get the self-suicide of the athletic program at NC State, triggering the inordinate predominance of UNC and Duke basketball that UNC begins to take over and it's not culminated until Swofford is hired. For nearly 40 years Carolina didn't run the conference. Now Carolina helped to run off South Carolina over Frank McGuire and they helped run off Maryland.

The ACC was a football conference from 1953 to 1962. By the mid 1960's the ACC was a basketball conference and this reliance on basketball was part of what empowered UNC and Duke after NC State cut it's own throat. And the reason as to why MD stayed so long was basketball - MD needed UNC and Duke as marquee opponents.

You have to jump in bed with someone - just look at ND. The question is what bully can you stand? Is bully Carolina preferable to bully Ohio State or bully Alabama, or bully Stanford? Every major conference has their bullies.


Capitalizing on an opportunity is something Carolina specializes in and has done so for over 100 years. They understand media and sales better than anyone else in the conference. Go back and do research on C. D. Chesley, the pioneer of televised ACC basketball. Carolina's greatest influence in the first 30 years of the ACC was it's media connections outside the official organs of the conference.

This was the NC ACC schools from the end of WWII to the early 80's:

Imagine for a moment WF, State, Duke, and UNC are attempting to sell a turd on the street corner.

WF will tell you that you need to buy the turd because in doing so you will cleanse your own soul and then you will be able to go forth and do good Baptist things in the community. The faithful buy the turd but are not really certain about it.

Duke will not be advertising and will tell you that they are selling the turd for charity purposes. A few wealthy folks buy a turd. Most just give money and leave the turd.

NC State will have a small ad that says turds are good for fertilizer. Only farmers buy the turds.

Carolina will blitz the airwaves telling you that you NEED their turd and that eating their turd makes you better than non-turd eaters. People beat down their door to jump on the bandwagon and buy a turd to eat.



You may think this analogy or joke is simplistic. It is and it isn't. It captures the essential essence of the Big 4.


You have to understand that to understand the ACC. To understand Clemson or even VPI you have understand that they were all male military schools when they were in the Southern Conference. I don't think Clemson enrolled it's first girl until 1962. These things help to shape the long term culture of the schools. It's no coincidence that everything about Clemson is masculine.


I can't tell you what makes Syracuse, Pitt, BC, or Louisville tick. But I know what caused the older ACC members to tick.

Pontification and excrement sales aside the simplest solution to this problem is the most obvious one.

The SEC and Big 10 raid the Big 12 forcing us into a P4. ESPN pushes the move to a champs only format. Terry D. loses his dinner, and West Virginia and Notre Dame become the 15th and 16th full members of the ACC.

You now have 2 divisions of 8 schools who will play 7 divisional games, 2 crossover games that rotate annually, and three OOC games.

ACC North:

Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia.

In other words former members of the Big East.

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest.

In other words the Old ACC, circa 1978, minus Maryland and plus Florida State.

Now most rivalries are solved. Va Tech can play Virginia every year as an OOC game not to count in the ACC record and everyone else can rotate normally.

The fans would all benefit by playing more regionally (Miami excluded but then they always are when it comes to travel).

In the end I think this format would work quite nicely for you guys.

And if the Irish won't cooperate then just add Cincinnati and run the same format.

(07-09-2018 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pontification and excrement sales aside the simplest solution to this problem is the most obvious one.

The SEC and Big 10 raid the Big 12 forcing us into a P4. ESPN pushes the move to a champs only format. Terry D. loses his dinner, and West Virginia and Notre Dame become the 15th and 16th full members of the ACC.

You now have 2 divisions of 8 schools who will play 7 divisional games, 2 crossover games that rotate annually, and three OOC games.

ACC North:

Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia.

In other words former members of the Big East.

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest.

In other words the Old ACC, circa 1978, minus Maryland and plus Florida State.

Now most rivalries are solved. Va Tech can play Virginia every year as an OOC game not to count in the ACC record and everyone else can rotate normally.

The fans would all benefit by playing more regionally (Miami excluded but then they always are when it comes to travel).

In the end I think this format would work quite nicely for you guys.

And if the Irish won't cooperate then just add Cincinnati and run the same format.

That's exactly what I proposed in another thread. In my vision, the B1G would add Kansas from the B12 and Mizzou from the SEC, which lets the SEC add all three of Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State instead of having to choose two of them.

If you could persuade the PAC to take four of the remaining five B12 members (my guess is Baylor draws the short straw) then you could dissolve the Big 12 without any exit fees. You wouldn't even have to wait for their GoR to expire (though given how slowly the NCAA and its members deal with change, it might expire anyway before you could get this done).

(07-09-2018 03:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pontification and excrement sales aside the simplest solution to this problem is the most obvious one.

The SEC and Big 10 raid the Big 12 forcing us into a P4. ESPN pushes the move to a champs only format. Terry D. loses his dinner, and West Virginia and Notre Dame become the 15th and 16th full members of the ACC.

You now have 2 divisions of 8 schools who will play 7 divisional games, 2 crossover games that rotate annually, and three OOC games.

ACC North:

Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia.

In other words former members of the Big East.

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest.

In other words the Old ACC, circa 1978, minus Maryland and plus Florida State.

Now most rivalries are solved. Va Tech can play Virginia every year as an OOC game not to count in the ACC record and everyone else can rotate normally.

The fans would all benefit by playing more regionally (Miami excluded but then they always are when it comes to travel).

In the end I think this format would work quite nicely for you guys.

And if the Irish won't cooperate then just add Cincinnati and run the same format.

That's exactly what I proposed in another thread. In my vision, the B1G would add Kansas from the B12 and Mizzou from the SEC, which lets the SEC add all three of Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State instead of having to choose two of them.

If you could persuade the PAC to take four of the remaining five B12 members (my guess is Baylor draws the short straw) then you could dissolve the Big 12 without any exit fees. You wouldn't even have to wait for their GoR to expire (though given how slowly the NCAA and its members deal with change, it might expire anyway before you could get this done).

I must have missed that post, but like I said it is the fulfillment of Occam's razor. It's really the only thing that makes sense. I suppose it flies in the face of bureaucrats who always feel they need to build bridges between new members and old, but the OBE worked! But like the old ACC their footprint was too small for what was driving contract rights at the time.

BTW: The PAC can solve their problems the same way:
Old PAC: Cal, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Wash St.

The New PAC adds:
Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, TCU/ISU, Utah

The rotation gives each of those New Side schools an opportunity to stay linked into California and the travel isn't as severe as the present PAC schedule. But more importantly it adds essentially the whole Big 12 footprint sans WVU to the PAC and puts them into the CTZ. Plus if you are stinking at revenue production it is the only realistic option they have.

As for the SEC & Big 10 I like your suggestion and have talked about it since 2010, but I'm thinking the network may rather have Texas/Kansas to the SEC leaving OU/ISU for the Big 10. It will be fun to see how this plays out.

(07-09-2018 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pontification and excrement sales aside the simplest solution to this problem is the most obvious one.

The SEC and Big 10 raid the Big 12 forcing us into a P4. ESPN pushes the move to a champs only format. Terry D. loses his dinner, and West Virginia and Notre Dame become the 15th and 16th full members of the ACC.

You now have 2 divisions of 8 schools who will play 7 divisional games, 2 crossover games that rotate annually, and three OOC games.

ACC North:

Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia.

In other words former members of the Big East.

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest.

In other words the Old ACC, circa 1978, minus Maryland and plus Florida State.

Now most rivalries are solved. Va Tech can play Virginia every year as an OOC game not to count in the ACC record and everyone else can rotate normally.

The fans would all benefit by playing more regionally (Miami excluded but then they always are when it comes to travel).

In the end I think this format would work quite nicely for you guys.

And if the Irish won't cooperate then just add Cincinnati and run the same format.

That's a very unfair alignment for VT. And only if Notre Dame were in would even be close to anything other than a travesty. VT has closer friends than you might think at WF, Duke, UNC, and NC State. VT and GT are also ideologically and pedagogically close.

You will lose VT as a member with a division like that and they would likely end up in the B10. Also, ND will never agree to 7-8 permanent ACC games and that's what 2 divisions of 8 make.

If someone is going to get flushed up north it should be Duke. That's a school of Yankees so let them play in the north. Duke is the most "northern" ACC school before you get to Pitt. Duke was the cause of the ACC's football problems and for 35 years their football program was just a tick on the neck of the conference.


Unless you have 3 divisions of 5 or 6, or PODs of 4, ND will not bite.

(07-09-2018 06:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pontification and excrement sales aside the simplest solution to this problem is the most obvious one.

The SEC and Big 10 raid the Big 12 forcing us into a P4. ESPN pushes the move to a champs only format. Terry D. loses his dinner, and West Virginia and Notre Dame become the 15th and 16th full members of the ACC.

You now have 2 divisions of 8 schools who will play 7 divisional games, 2 crossover games that rotate annually, and three OOC games.

ACC North:

Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia.

In other words former members of the Big East.

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest.

In other words the Old ACC, circa 1978, minus Maryland and plus Florida State.

Now most rivalries are solved. Va Tech can play Virginia every year as an OOC game not to count in the ACC record and everyone else can rotate normally.

The fans would all benefit by playing more regionally (Miami excluded but then they always are when it comes to travel).

In the end I think this format would work quite nicely for you guys.

And if the Irish won't cooperate then just add Cincinnati and run the same format.

That's a very unfair alignment for VT. And only if Notre Dame were in would even be close to anything other than a travesty. VT has closer friends than you might think at WF, Duke, UNC, and NC State. VT and GT are also ideologically and pedagogically close.

You will lose VT as a member with a division like that and they would likely end up in the B10. Also, ND will never agree to 7-8 permanent ACC games and that's what 2 divisions of 8 make.

If someone is going to get flushed up north it should be Duke. That's a school of Yankees so let them play in the north. Duke is the most "northern" ACC school before you get to Pitt. Duke was the cause of the ACC's football problems and for 35 years their football program was just a tick on the neck of the conference.


Unless you have 3 divisions of 5 or 6, or PODs of 4, ND will not bite.

Virginia Tech thrived with that schedule for quite some time. But if you could get Duke to make that switch, which they won't, then fine.

They thrived but did not like it. They will not accept the ACC preventing them from appearing in the State of NC - that's existential to VT football and basketball.


We should have allowed Duke to drop down in football when they floated that idea in the 90's.

Why on Earth would Virginia Tech go back to a line-up they were desperate to escape from? The North-South alignment is a non-starter. Miami even cited the fact they wanted to play in a more regional conference when they joined the ACC.

The following is the number recruits listed by 247 for each state this year:

Georgia 206
Pennsylvania 98
Virginia 58

Coastal total outside NC and Florida = 362

South Carolina 61
Kentucky 39
NY 21
Mass 10

Atlantic total outside NC and Florida = 131

It's a 3-1 recruit disparity.

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Footba...l&State=NC


This year there are 66 kids in the MD/DC/Del area. So that's a net loss to the Atlantic from the loss of MD of 27 kids this year, but more importantly it's the loss of East Coast kids, not Mid West kids.


Of course you can't say that you can't recruit kids from these other states. State has two this year from Georgia. But from the 1960's to the mid 2000's State recruited Virginia, MD, and Pa very heavily. Then it was gone - "poof".


One of the favorite recruiting tactics that Carolina has used in both sports is the promise of a game in the recruits hometown area. It's much easier in basketball, but it's been used before in football. If you go to Atlanta just once every 12 years or go to Virginia just once every 6 years, you have nothing to dangle to the family that can't really afford to travel.


Moreover having been to Louisville, Pittsburgh, Boston, and Syracuse, some a number of times, going to a football game at BC sucks. The Carrier Dome is horrible in September and early October. Louisville is nice until mid October but then turns and Pitt is the same way. The cities of Boston and Pittsburgh are nice to visit, but you are aware that football stadium belongs to the Steelers, and the Panthers are just tenants.


It's very difficult to get around what are essentially geographically based pitfalls as they relate to football.

(07-09-2018 07:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  They thrived but did not like it. They will not accept the ACC preventing them from appearing in the State of NC - that's existential to VT football and basketball.


We should have allowed Duke to drop down in football when they floated that idea in the 90's.

There are 4 North Carolina schools. If you are playing, as I suggested, 7 divisional games and 2 cross divisional games that rotate annually, then with ease each school in North Carolina could be rotated through so that every 4 years Virginia Tech will have played 2 games in North Carolina and in 8 years they would have played on all 4 North Carolina campuses.

(07-09-2018 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Why on Earth would Virginia Tech go back to a line-up they were desperate to escape from? The North-South alignment is a non-starter. Miami even cited the fact they wanted to play in a more regional conference when they joined the ACC.

Not true. VT always played teams from both directions (North and South), and the only reason they ever became anything close to "desperate" was when it became obvious that Big East football was losing Miami.

As long as the Hokies can (1) play UVA every year, (2) play a game in the state of North Carolina every year, and (3) maintain a game in Florida every other year... all is well.

(07-10-2018 05:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Why on Earth would Virginia Tech go back to a line-up they were desperate to escape from? The North-South alignment is a non-starter. Miami even cited the fact they wanted to play in a more regional conference when they joined the ACC.

Not true. VT always played teams from both directions (North and South), and the only reason they ever became anything close to "desperate" was when it became obvious that Big East football was losing Miami.

As long as the Hokies can (1) play UVA every year, (2) play a game in the state of North Carolina every year, and (3) maintain a game in Florida every other year... all is well.

Under it's previous university president, VT wanted to avoid playing in the ACC north at all costs. It was the primary benefit to joining the ACC that we could play some schools closer to Tech. Now that we have a new president and a line up of Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and West Virginia looks a lot better than our current annual line up, VT may have softened it's stance on avoiding being in the ACC North.

I would really like to know how the current president feels about VT being in the ACC North. If we do end up there, I won't feel as though we will have been forced there against our wishes.

(07-10-2018 05:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Why on Earth would Virginia Tech go back to a line-up they were desperate to escape from? The North-South alignment is a non-starter. Miami even cited the fact they wanted to play in a more regional conference when they joined the ACC.

Not true. VT always played teams from both directions (North and South), and the only reason they ever became anything close to "desperate" was when it became obvious that Big East football was losing Miami.

As long as the Hokies can (1) play UVA every year, (2) play a game in the state of North Carolina every year, and (3) maintain a game in Florida every other year... all is well.

Thank you for bringing that point up. I dont remember VT hating the BE. The BE became unstable when Miami left, which caused VT, SU, BC and others to seek an exit.

(07-10-2018 05:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Why on Earth would Virginia Tech go back to a line-up they were desperate to escape from? The North-South alignment is a non-starter. Miami even cited the fact they wanted to play in a more regional conference when they joined the ACC.

Not true. VT always played teams from both directions (North and South), and the only reason they ever became anything close to "desperate" was when it became obvious that Big East football was losing Miami.

As long as the Hokies can (1) play UVA every year, (2) play a game in the state of North Carolina every year, and (3) maintain a game in Florida every other year... all is well.

Did a quick fact check for the teams Virginia Tech played in the North the decade before the Big East:

1980 - Rhode Island
1984 - Temple
1985 - Cincinnati, Syracuse
1986 - Cincinnati, Syracuse, Temple
1987 - Syracuse, Navy*, Cincinnati
1988 - Cincinnati, Syracuse
1989 - Akron, Temple
1990 - BGSU, Temple
1991 - Cincinnati

* North?

Yes, you are right VT did play teams from the North (more than I expected), but the amount was absolutely dwarfed by teams from the South, with a smattering of West Virginia and Kentucky.

As far as your last paragraph: that is the exact set-up right now, so why disturb it with the notion Notre Dame would join a division with West Virginia? "West Virginia, guys. That's the secret to get Notre Dame on board!" - Said no one, ever.

My idea of switching BC and Pitt changes absolutely nothing for the Gobblers, while satisfying Clemson, FSU, and apparently NC State. Until there is the possibility of going forward without divisions, the only thing that can be done is to perfect the zipper. This should have been done when Syracuse and Pitt joined.