What really exacerbates the imbalance is that with MD a game in College Park was seen and covered by the media in the DC and Baltimore DMA's. That meant all of DC, all of MD, all of NW Va, all of Delaware, and southside Pa from the Delaware circle to Bedford Pa. NC State used to get a lot of important recruits from PA, MD, and DC. Now that game is replaced with a game with Louisville and a less recruiting area much further away from Raleigh. Not only did the Atlantic schools get kicked out of MD, they only play Virginia twice in 12 years and Pa once in 12 years. Conversely, any game shown in Charlotte covers the northside of South Carolina, any game shown in Asheville is part of the Greenville DMA. I could go on but the reality is that the Atlantic got screwed with recruiting footprint, and with Miami's collapse instead of the Atlantic have football programs 1, 4, and 5 out of 12, you ended up with programs 1, 1A, and 4 in the Atlantic with the best program in the Coastal being a 3 at best. Appearing in what had been our second or third most important recruiting market in football and basketball was taken from State. Clemson and FSU lost not so much a recruiting market but lost a home game each year to a small alumni base school in the far northeast.

(07-08-2018 05:14 PM)Kaplony 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.

The two teams with the most ACC titles in the only sport where divisions matter are in the same division so your limited snapshot doesn't matter. If Maryland were still here it would be three for three.

To expand on this point, as of 2012 when the ACC had a chance to rebalance the divisions, Clemson had the most ACC titles at 14, 16 if you go back to the SEC/Southern Conference Split in 1933. Second was FSU with 12. Third was Maryland with 9 and 2 more going back to 33.

Duke had 17 titles going back to 33, 7 of which came after the ACC/split from the SoCon. HOWEVER, Duke had not won a title since 1989, and had not won on before that since 1962. Despite this Duke remains 4th in ACC times.

The vast, vast bulk of all ACC and Southern Conference football titles winners were placed in the Atlantic.


Since 1953 45 titles have come from Atlantic teams. Only 21 from the Coastal and of those 6 are from Duke prior to 1962 and five from UNC prior to 1980.


In the last 40 years just 10 Titles came from Coastal schools and 4 of those are from VT. The other 31 are Atlantic schools FSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and MD. (This includes 2 ties between FSU and GT and UVA).

Good points being made, especially about how schools would vote regarding divisional changes. I don't think UNC cares about playing in Boston vs. Pittsburgh (the Heels have more players from Mass than Penn, one to zero), but like I mentioned earlier, Duke has a ton of alumni in Boston; the Devils might vote for that trade.

Boston College should have moved to the Coastal when Syracuse joined for the simple reason of equality–New England and New York should be treated like Florida and split-up. Only when Maryland left was it even possible to move Virginia Tech to the Coastal.

Louisville, no offense, is an afterthought here. I can guarantee no schools in the Coastal would vote for Louisville to switch with Pitt, but some might vote for BC, those being Duke and Miami. Why would Virginia Tech care if Pitt remained their cross-division, or like some have mentioned, Louisville could be their crossover?

(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.

(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.

You could also sell some of those house that the Watuaga County Inspection Department allows to be built and then slide off the hill.

Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

(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.

I'm not sure I would call the Big East equal to the ACC since the Big East contained Temple, Rutgers, and then UConn. Those were HORRIBLE programs prior to ACC expansion, so the won loss record of Big East schools is somewhat inflated by those three. The top and the middle of the two conferences may have been nearly equal but the bottom was night and day different.


If you compare Temple and Rutgers to Wake Forest and Duke, Temple and Rutgers made up almost 30% of the Big East and over the 10 year period you mentioned they averaged 1.9 and 3.3 wins a year. Playing two more conference games a year and making up only 22% of the ACC Duke averaged 2.5 wins and Wake averaged 4.3 wins a year. Temple never had a winning season in that span while Duke had an 8 win year in that span and was co-champion. Wake Forest had 3 winning seasons compared to Rutgers 2 but Rutgers only winning seasons had come 9 and 10 years deep while Wakes had been in the last 4.


Effectively during that period a Big East school played just 4 conference games they could lose - only Miami, VT, Syracuse, BC, and Pitt were competitive. While the ACC schools played 7 conference games a year they could lose with only Duke being non-competitive outside the year 1994.

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

C’mon! To be fair, Georgia Tech MUCH prefers to be with UNC and Duke than any school in the Atlantic. Don’t paint this as big bad Tobacco Road getting what they want despite every other school’s efforts. I’ll reiterate, FSU has NO history with GT, and Clemson got the Jackets as a crossover rival. It’s not just ATL, it’s what GT wants too.

The Pitt thing I still don’t understand. They should have been in the Atlantic from the get. Big whiff by Swoff, although it wouldn’t have changed the Terps’ mind because they wanted to be with Penn State...and the ACC also whiffed on that, but that’s another story.

(07-08-2018 09:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

C’mon! To be fair, Georgia Tech MUCH prefers to be with UNC and Duke than any school in the Atlantic. Don’t paint this as big bad Tobacco Road getting what they want despite every other school’s efforts. I’ll reiterate, FSU has NO history with GT, and Clemson got the Jackets as a crossover rival. It’s not just ATL, it’s what GT wants too.

The Pitt thing I still don’t understand. They should have been in the Atlantic from the get. Big whiff by Swoff, although it wouldn’t have changed the Terps’ mind because they wanted to be with Penn State...and the ACC also whiffed on that, but that’s another story.

I know there is at least a dozen different classes you can take at Carolina to learn how to lie through your teeth, and smile all the while with a **** eating grin. You must have taken several. As have I, however despite UNC bull**** there is truth that can be had. The truth is that UNC, Duke, and UVa got everything they could get out of the divisional split. I would also agree that GT got everything they could want. But we both know that before GT was brought into the deal, you three got together, or rather you got together with UVa after you and Duke colluded.


What the two of you did to UVa in order to bring VT into the league instead of Syracuse was a master stroke on par with what MD did with UVa to keep VT and West Virginia out back in 53.


By the way, the Tobacco Road appellation should be applied only when UNC, Duke, State, and WF are all four involved. If it's just a UNC and Duke thing the proper appellation is "the Blues" and that works when UVa is in bed with you two.


We both know that making Carolina a relevant football power has been Swofford's Holy Grail since you put shoes on him and plucked him out of Wilkes County.

As an aside, does anyone actually think that things in the B10, SEC, or P12 happen as if manna fell from heaven? It takes votes to make policy. Those with the most votes have the power and toss breadcrumbs to those without the votes. None of this is new. I'd like someone to tell me that last thing that happened in the Big 10 that displeased both Michigan and Ohio State. What's that last thing that Stanford and Cal did not like? The only reason the SEC exists is for Bama to **** Tennessee and LSU.

(07-08-2018 09:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

C’mon! To be fair, Georgia Tech MUCH prefers to be with UNC and Duke than any school in the Atlantic. Don’t paint this as big bad Tobacco Road getting what they want despite every other school’s efforts. I’ll reiterate, FSU has NO history with GT, and Clemson got the Jackets as a crossover rival. It’s not just ATL, it’s what GT wants too.

The Pitt thing I still don’t understand. They should have been in the Atlantic from the get. Big whiff by Swoff, although it wouldn’t have changed the Terps’ mind because they wanted to be with Penn State...and the ACC also whiffed on that, but that’s another story.

Seriously?

Georgia Tech Athletics doesn't want a third assured sellout home football game?

I imagine GT would prefer a situation where they could alternate Clemson and FSU at home with UGA and an attractive OOC to maximize ticket sales.

(07-08-2018 09:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 09:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

C’mon! To be fair, Georgia Tech MUCH prefers to be with UNC and Duke than any school in the Atlantic. Don’t paint this as big bad Tobacco Road getting what they want despite every other school’s efforts. I’ll reiterate, FSU has NO history with GT, and Clemson got the Jackets as a crossover rival. It’s not just ATL, it’s what GT wants too.

The Pitt thing I still don’t understand. They should have been in the Atlantic from the get. Big whiff by Swoff, although it wouldn’t have changed the Terps’ mind because they wanted to be with Penn State...and the ACC also whiffed on that, but that’s another story.

I know there is at least a dozen different classes you can take at Carolina to learn how to lie through your teeth, and smile all the while with a **** eating grin. You must have taken several. As have I, however despite UNC bull**** there is truth that can be had. The truth is that UNC, Duke, and UVa got everything they could get out of the divisional split. I would also agree that GT got everything they could want. But we both know that before GT was brought into the deal, you three got together, or rather you got together with UVa after you and Duke colluded.


What the two of you did to UVa in order to bring VT into the league instead of Syracuse was a master stroke on par with what MD did with UVa to keep VT and West Virginia out back in 53.


By the way, the Tobacco Road appellation should be applied only when UNC, Duke, State, and WF are all four involved. If it's just a UNC and Duke thing the proper appellation is "the Blues" and that works when UVa is in bed with you two.


We both know that making Carolina a relevant football power has been Swofford's Holy Grail since you put shoes on him and plucked him out of Wilkes County.

So you do agree that Georgia Tech got what they wanted? Good, because they did. NC State got what they wanted too, I’m sorry that Maryland left and made it harder for you guys to dominate your division and continue on as the football powerhouse you are. Where is ol’ Chuck Amato when you need him most?

I’m hoping that Swoff will use his “dirty money” and buy up ol’ North Wilkesboro and get it back on the circuit. We need more short tracks, because obviously these kids can’t drive on superspeedways yet!

FSU played Georgia Tech SEVEN times before the ACC. They were both independents for like 20 years and they played THREE times. Don’t tell me there is some injustice separating those two.

UNC would rather have FSU than Miami, but unfortunately not everything works out becuause concessions have to be made in a zipper. The North/South split is dead in the water.

(07-08-2018 10:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  UNC would rather have FSU than Miami

UNC would rather have a team they had only beat once in 11 tries?

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

What Duke and Carolina wanted was no expansion at all. When that wasn't going to "fly" they suggested the Miami only plan.
But Swofford (with the rest of the conference) stuck with consultants plan of adding Syracuse, Miami and Boston College.
While all of this haggling was going on Marye Anne Fox (NCSU chancellor and Notre Dame board member) threw the Irish into the mix, knowing they would never join, to disrupt the entire process, which it did (this action eventually led to her dismissal).
There are some that believe that Duke, Carolina and UVa got everything they wanted in the divisional alignment as retribution for cleaning up the mess that State created.

(07-08-2018 11:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 10:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  UNC would rather have FSU than Miami

UNC would rather have a team they had only beat once in 11 tries?

2 game win streak baby!

(07-08-2018 08:50 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I'm not sure I would call the Big East equal to the ACC since the Big East contained Temple, Rutgers, and then UConn. Those were HORRIBLE programs prior to ACC expansion, so the won loss record of Big East schools is somewhat inflated by those three. The top and the middle of the two conferences may have been nearly equal but the bottom was night and day different.


If you compare Temple and Rutgers to Wake Forest and Duke, Temple and Rutgers made up almost 30% of the Big East and over the 10 year period you mentioned they averaged 1.9 and 3.3 wins a year. Playing two more conference games a year and making up only 22% of the ACC Duke averaged 2.5 wins and Wake averaged 4.3 wins a year. Temple never had a winning season in that span while Duke had an 8 win year in that span and was co-champion. Wake Forest had 3 winning seasons compared to Rutgers 2 but Rutgers only winning seasons had come 9 and 10 years deep while Wakes had been in the last 4.


Effectively during that period a Big East school played just 4 conference games they could lose - only Miami, VT, Syracuse, BC, and Pitt were competitive. While the ACC schools played 7 conference games a year they could lose with only Duke being non-competitive outside the year 1994.

WVU was competitive also. They were undefeated and playing Florida for a share of a National Championship in 1993.

(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.

(07-09-2018 04:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 08:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Duke, Carolina, and UVa got everything they wanted in a division. They got VT to help fill their stadiums. They insulated themselves from Clemson and FSU but kept Atlanta. They prevented themselves from having to travel to Syracuse or Boston every other year. You don't think Swofford just drew this out of the hat do you? Maryland was pissed that Pitt was added to the Coastal instead of the Atlantic - just one more drop in the bucket in their exit.


2003 was no different than 1953. It's all internal politics. In 53 Maryland orchestrated things so that they would have a solid 4th vote with UVa, that's why MD had UVa added prior to a vote to allow VT and/or West Va.

What Duke and Carolina wanted was no expansion at all. When that wasn't going to "fly" they suggested the Miami only plan.
But Swofford (with the rest of the conference) stuck with consultants plan of adding Syracuse, Miami and Boston College.
While all of this haggling was going on Marye Anne Fox (NCSU chancellor and Notre Dame board member) threw the Irish into the mix, knowing they would never join, to disrupt the entire process, which it did (this action eventually led to her dismissal).
There are some that believe that Duke, Carolina and UVa got everything they wanted in the divisional alignment as retribution for cleaning up the mess that State created.

Patently false.

The truth is that UNC and Duke let it be known publicly that they would not support expansion so that all the expansion vote pressure could be applied to MD and UVa. This allowed VT to force Va's governor to put a gun to UVa's head so that VT was included. Carolina and Duke KNEW this would be the outcome and wanted this outcome because neither wanted Syracuse in the ACC.


To keep VT out, all Duke or UNC needed to do was keep quiet. They didn't. To keep VT out, all Duke or UNC needed to do was vote to add Miami, BC, and Syracuse. They didn't. To keep Syracuse in, all they needed to do was vote down MAF's proposal to take ND's temperature. They didn't. State was in cahoots with Duke and UNC on this. Such is politics.

MAF tossed in ND to prevent an immediate vote between BC and Syracuse, which it did.


Duke and UNC wanted this outcome because VT football fans would fill Kenan and Wallace Wade, and most importantly because VT would not be a threat to Duke and UNC in basketball.


Lance, you don't have to prevaricate here, this is not an NCAA or SACS investigation.


The days of UNC hiding behind disingenuous lies about academics are over. What your faculty say about academics is used as a veneer to cover the truth which is that Carolina will do ANYTHING to win an athletic event and has been willing to do ANYTHING to win an athletic contest for the last 80 years.


Just be honest.