(01-14-2022 06:38 AM)ShakeNBake Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 04:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 04:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And frankly people in rhe South simply don't worry about national audience when playing neighbors is so much more fun.

ACC Basketball
Nascar
Pro wrestling

3 things that were better before they started trying to go national

^This^

So true. And ACC basketball; any majorish conference back in the day before the expansion era (let’s say 1990ish forward), they played it out regionally twice (at your place, then mine), and if you were any good, you might see each other again (maybe more than just a third time) in March.

D1 football has always been queered by regionalism in a more profound way. Conference location, specific schools, conference affiliation over independence, independence location and legacy. To me, the 1980’s were the worst, but not because of what specifically happened during them, where you had independents playing in a non-conference traditionally aligned bowl, ala Penn State-Miami at the Fiesta Bowl, or the chaos coming from the BYU NC from the Holiday Bowl…is that this decade caused the response of the 1990’s, with conference expansion and further belt-tightening with championship access yet still rooted regional biases. I refuse to revere the decade as one of the last great ones for college football because of how bad the response was to it in the 90’s, and how we’re still somewhat stuck with the residue of those two decades’ sins.

Hopefully we’ll get there for college football. But, what the SEC is trying to do to best encapsulate regional and quasi-culturally aligned sport hotbeds still neglects the impact and power of the sport played outside of that portion of the south (now expanding into the midwest and heartland/plains).

(01-14-2022 10:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 09:42 AM)esayem Wrote:  1) The NFL will be the last place to play football and we will not see Michigan fans become Alabama or Ole Miss fans because the Big House starts hosting Wolverine lacrosse and soccer games instead of violent football. They will become fans of those sports and they will cheer for the Lions.

2) College sports will always be bound to the college, and in the SEC’s case the state governments and in turn the federal government; the rebel yell may be loud, but the federal ear may as well be deaf.

3) The ACC is actually having a better than usual recruiting year, with Boston College cracking the top 50 and Carolina in the top 10. I’m not so worried the ACC is in a downward trajectory.

4) Traditional ACC programs Wake Forest and NC State are stepping it up on the hardwood. Carolina and Duke haven’t shown much drop off and I personally prefer Hubert Davis as an in-game coach already! Also, not much concern for me there.

5) If we’re Frankenstein’s monster, then we will maintain the ACC name and records and become a limb of the larger SEC monster; you heard it here first. The ACC brand is already quite valuable and you as a corporate guru should recognize that.

1. The NFL lives largely off of the SEC player pipeline. When college football in the South is gone so too is the NFL. The NFL, not the Federal Government, will encourage the continued play of SE & SW football and likely subsidized it.

2. The SCOTUS is about to professionalize college sports. Plantation mentality with regards to athletics is about to be "Gone with the Wind." I doubt a rebel yell will have much to do with it.

3. The ACC is struggling by past ACC measures and by the analysts' data. When is the last time you had 1 ranked team?

4. When you have programs "stepping it up" it's usually not a good sign. The ACC had the equivalent of Missouri winning the SEC in football this year, no offense to either Pitt or Wake, but that simply showed the collapse at the top and a 3 loss very good but not great team wasn't a total collapse but certainly was 2 steps slower than normal and when your only horse stumbles it hurts. And Duke while very strong is showing some chinks in the armor as well.

5. We agree here. Corporately speaking this grafting seems inevitable. The question is when. SEC money makes the ACC traditional basketball schools peak again, and FSU and Clemson whole, and possibly Miami bloom again. Anyone else making the transition gets a much-needed infusion, like Virginia Tech.

What's more there is now brand cohesion and an exclusive regionalization for recruits. And all of it spurs on viewers within the footprint.

1) That’s a good point, but I challenge that because by then the NFL can establish a southern minor league where the players won’t have to bother with things like going to class.

2) That doesn’t exempt universities from potential anti-trust suites. We really don’t know what this will look like. Will athletes be treated like glorified maintenance men in regard to payroll, or will they still be bound to going to class and remaining eligible? Too much in the grey here still to be so definite.

3) If number one rankings define success then that means 130 odd teams aren’t doing very well at any given time. Trajectory looks good. Even FSU is cleaning it up on the recruiting trail despite Coach Prime’s meddling.

4) I disagree here. Wake Forest is a shining example of excellent coaching and Pitt has gone toe-to-toe with Clemson on a number of occasions. If Pitt had an on-campus stadium like the days of yore, I think they’d be more highly regarded like they were in the past. Pittsburgh is a football town and there is plenty of room for the Panthers. Missouri has never been very good and I don’t believe they have a national title or the pedigree of Pitt.

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

(01-14-2022 10:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 09:42 AM)esayem Wrote:  1) The NFL will be the last place to play football and we will not see Michigan fans become Alabama or Ole Miss fans because the Big House starts hosting Wolverine lacrosse and soccer games instead of violent football. They will become fans of those sports and they will cheer for the Lions.

2) College sports will always be bound to the college, and in the SEC’s case the state governments and in turn the federal government; the rebel yell may be loud, but the federal ear may as well be deaf.

3) The ACC is actually having a better than usual recruiting year, with Boston College cracking the top 50 and Carolina in the top 10. I’m not so worried the ACC is in a downward trajectory.

4) Traditional ACC programs Wake Forest and NC State are stepping it up on the hardwood. Carolina and Duke haven’t shown much drop off and I personally prefer Hubert Davis as an in-game coach already! Also, not much concern for me there.

5) If we’re Frankenstein’s monster, then we will maintain the ACC name and records and become a limb of the larger SEC monster; you heard it here first. The ACC brand is already quite valuable and you as a corporate guru should recognize that.

1. The NFL lives largely off of the SEC player pipeline. When college football in the South is gone so too is the NFL. The NFL, not the Federal Government, will encourage the continued play of SE & SW football and likely subsidized it.

2. The SCOTUS is about to professionalize college sports. Plantation mentality with regards to athletics is about to be "Gone with the Wind." I doubt a rebel yell will have much to do with it.

3. The ACC is struggling by past ACC measures and by the analysts' data. When is the last time you had 1 ranked team?

4. When you have programs "stepping it up" it's usually not a good sign. The ACC had the equivalent of Missouri winning the SEC in football this year, no offense to either Pitt or Wake, but that simply showed the collapse at the top and a 3 loss very good but not great team wasn't a total collapse but certainly was 2 steps slower than normal and when your only horse stumbles it hurts. And Duke while very strong is showing some chinks in the armor as well.

5. We agree here. Corporately speaking this grafting seems inevitable. The question is when. SEC money makes the ACC traditional basketball schools peak again, and FSU and Clemson whole, and possibly Miami bloom again. Anyone else making the transition gets a much-needed infusion, like Virginia Tech.

What's more there is now brand cohesion and an exclusive regionalization for recruits. And all of it spurs on viewers within the footprint.

1) That’s a good point, but I challenge that because by then the NFL can establish a southern minor league where the players won’t have to bother with things like going to class.

2) That doesn’t exempt universities from potential anti-trust suites. We really don’t know what this will look like. Will athletes be treated like glorified maintenance men in regard to payroll, or will they still be bound to going to class and remaining eligible? Too much in the grey here still to be so definite.

3) If number one rankings define success then that means 130 odd teams aren’t doing very well at any given time. Trajectory looks good. Even FSU is cleaning it up on the recruiting trail despite Coach Prime’s meddling.

4) I disagree here. Wake Forest is a shining example of excellent coaching and Pitt has gone toe-to-toe with Clemson on a number of occasions. If Pitt had an on-campus stadium like the days of yore, I think they’d be more highly regarded like they were in the past. Pittsburgh is a football town and there is plenty of room for the Panthers. Missouri has never been very good and I don’t believe they have a national title or the pedigree of Pitt.

Esayem, #5 solves most of the rest. Leverage over the region helps all of us and keeps ESPN more compliant. #1 It's easier to subsidize than manage for the NFL. #2 They will be students it's just that most will major in a sports related field. Anti-trust is really a red hearing for state schools since politicians have grass roots to worry about. Benchmarks for competition should determine your tier. #3 There are likely 70-80 schools too many in this tier. #4 My remarks were general, not specific and I noted Pitt and Wake's accomplishments in the first post, but they aren't your bell cows. When USC is down the PAC is considered down would be the analogy to Clemson/FSU & the ACC.

(01-14-2022 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 09:42 AM)esayem Wrote:  1) The NFL will be the last place to play football and we will not see Michigan fans become Alabama or Ole Miss fans because the Big House starts hosting Wolverine lacrosse and soccer games instead of violent football. They will become fans of those sports and they will cheer for the Lions.

2) College sports will always be bound to the college, and in the SEC’s case the state governments and in turn the federal government; the rebel yell may be loud, but the federal ear may as well be deaf.

3) The ACC is actually having a better than usual recruiting year, with Boston College cracking the top 50 and Carolina in the top 10. I’m not so worried the ACC is in a downward trajectory.

4) Traditional ACC programs Wake Forest and NC State are stepping it up on the hardwood. Carolina and Duke haven’t shown much drop off and I personally prefer Hubert Davis as an in-game coach already! Also, not much concern for me there.

5) If we’re Frankenstein’s monster, then we will maintain the ACC name and records and become a limb of the larger SEC monster; you heard it here first. The ACC brand is already quite valuable and you as a corporate guru should recognize that.

1. The NFL lives largely off of the SEC player pipeline. When college football in the South is gone so too is the NFL. The NFL, not the Federal Government, will encourage the continued play of SE & SW football and likely subsidized it.

2. The SCOTUS is about to professionalize college sports. Plantation mentality with regards to athletics is about to be "Gone with the Wind." I doubt a rebel yell will have much to do with it.

3. The ACC is struggling by past ACC measures and by the analysts' data. When is the last time you had 1 ranked team?

4. When you have programs "stepping it up" it's usually not a good sign. The ACC had the equivalent of Missouri winning the SEC in football this year, no offense to either Pitt or Wake, but that simply showed the collapse at the top and a 3 loss very good but not great team wasn't a total collapse but certainly was 2 steps slower than normal and when your only horse stumbles it hurts. And Duke while very strong is showing some chinks in the armor as well.

5. We agree here. Corporately speaking this grafting seems inevitable. The question is when. SEC money makes the ACC traditional basketball schools peak again, and FSU and Clemson whole, and possibly Miami bloom again. Anyone else making the transition gets a much-needed infusion, like Virginia Tech.

What's more there is now brand cohesion and an exclusive regionalization for recruits. And all of it spurs on viewers within the footprint.

1) That’s a good point, but I challenge that because by then the NFL can establish a southern minor league where the players won’t have to bother with things like going to class.

2) That doesn’t exempt universities from potential anti-trust suites. We really don’t know what this will look like. Will athletes be treated like glorified maintenance men in regard to payroll, or will they still be bound to going to class and remaining eligible? Too much in the grey here still to be so definite.

3) If number one rankings define success then that means 130 odd teams aren’t doing very well at any given time. Trajectory looks good. Even FSU is cleaning it up on the recruiting trail despite Coach Prime’s meddling.

4) I disagree here. Wake Forest is a shining example of excellent coaching and Pitt has gone toe-to-toe with Clemson on a number of occasions. If Pitt had an on-campus stadium like the days of yore, I think they’d be more highly regarded like they were in the past. Pittsburgh is a football town and there is plenty of room for the Panthers. Missouri has never been very good and I don’t believe they have a national title or the pedigree of Pitt.

Esayem, #5 solves most of the rest. Leverage over the region helps all of us and keeps ESPN more compliant. #1 It's easier to subsidize than manage for the NFL. #2 They will be students it's just that most will major in a sports related field. Anti-trust is really a red hearing for state schools since politicians have grass roots to worry about. Benchmarks for competition should determine your tier. #3 There are likely 70-80 schools too many in this tier. #4 My remarks were general, not specific and I noted Pitt and Wake's accomplishments in the first post, but they aren't your bell cows. When USC is down the PAC is considered down would be the analogy to Clemson/FSU & the ACC.

I’m happy with five as long as Wake and Duke are involved. I have to believe Carolina will want these two included.

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

That has always seemed to be an issue with the ACC to me. What really links say BC and Florida State? It seems like your have the Carolina Virginia core and outliers beyond that point.

I worry the Big 12 is going to have similar problems in the long run spread from WVU to Orlando to Utah.

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

When has FSU ever played against the “big boys”? They routinely had soft schedules in the 80’s with two or three marquee games. The ACC was a step up because the competition was stiffer than their Indy schedules plus they got into the best basketball conference.

I hate to break it to you, but you guys would be looking forward to Vandy and Mizzou in the SEC because they’re the only teams you’d be competitive with at this time.

(01-14-2022 07:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

When has FSU ever played against the “big boys”? They routinely had soft schedules in the 80’s with two or three marquee games. The ACC was a step up because the competition was stiffer than their Indy schedules plus they got into the best basketball conference.

I hate to break it to you, but you guys would be looking forward to Vandy and Mizzou in the SEC because they’re the only teams you’d be competitive with at this time.

No, joining the ACC for then-annual matchups with Duke, Wake, UVA, UNC, etc. was not a "step up" in competition on our football schedule. You probably aren't very familiar with FSU's football history from the Independent days, before we foolishly allowed ourselves to be sewn onto Conference Frankenstein. Bobby Bowden built Florida State into what it used to be on the reputation of being willing to play anyone, anytime and anywhere. Let's take a look at who we played in 1980s regular season games-

1989 - Clemson, LSU, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1988 - Miami, Clemson, Michigan State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida
1987 - Texas Tech, Michigan State, Miami, Auburn, Florida
1986 - Nebraska, North Carolina, Michigan, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1985 - Nebraska, Kansas, Auburn, North Carolina, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1984 - Kansas, Miami, Auburn, Arizona State, South Carolina, Florida
1983 - LSU, Auburn, Pitt, Arizona State, South Carolina, Miami, Florida
1982 - Pitt, Ohio State, Miami, South Carolina, LSU, Florida
1981 - Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, LSU, Miami, Florida
1980 - LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Pitt, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Florida

Indeed at this point in the SEC we would certainly take our lumps, as we have in the ACC the last few years. Mizzou & Vanderbilt could both be tough outs for FSU right now. But if we ever get the opportunity to undo Bobby's greatest mistake, I have every confidence that the excitement and the resources that will follow that move will see FSU poised to reascend to the top of college football. Will it be like we dominated the ACC in the 90s? No, it won't. Saban & Alabama don't dominate the SEC like that now, and nobody is ever likely to.

Notable that since the initial Ohio St.-Oregon CFP title game, we have had:

Alabama-Clemson 3 times, lower seed winning each time
Alabama-Georiga twice, lower seed winning each time
Alabama-Ohio St.
Clemson-LSU

Every final has had Alabama, Clemson or Ohio St. and the last 7 Alabama or Clemson.

(01-14-2022 06:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

That has always seemed to be an issue with the ACC to me. What really links say BC and Florida State? It seems like your have the Carolina Virginia core and outliers beyond that point.

I worry the Big 12 is going to have similar problems in the long run spread from WVU to Orlando to Utah.

well unfortunately the ACC is a Frankenstein monster conference made up of 2 different conferences and 2 different cultures (north and south) old big East and ACC. The BE schools had to join up or be left out of major college athletics. Wish we could just have north and South divisions and have Miami in the north division. It would be better for everyone in the league. I’m so glad Pitt an old BE team won the league this year.

(01-14-2022 08:29 PM)PusherT Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 06:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

That has always seemed to be an issue with the ACC to me. What really links say BC and Florida State? It seems like your have the Carolina Virginia core and outliers beyond that point.

I worry the Big 12 is going to have similar problems in the long run spread from WVU to Orlando to Utah.

well unfortunately the ACC is a Frankenstein monster conference made up of 2 different conferences and 2 different cultures (north and south) old big East and ACC. The BE schools had to join up or be left out of major college athletics. Wish we could just have north and South divisions and have Miami in the north division. It would be better for everyone in the league. I’m so glad Pitt an old BE team won the league this year.

Or simply flipping BC/Syracuse for Miami/Georgia Tech.

(01-14-2022 08:29 PM)PusherT Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 06:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

That has always seemed to be an issue with the ACC to me. What really links say BC and Florida State? It seems like your have the Carolina Virginia core and outliers beyond that point.

I worry the Big 12 is going to have similar problems in the long run spread from WVU to Orlando to Utah.

well unfortunately the ACC is a Frankenstein monster conference made up of 2 different conferences and 2 different cultures (north and south) old big East and ACC. The BE schools had to join up or be left out of major college athletics. Wish we could just have north and South divisions and have Miami in the north division. It would be better for everyone in the league. I’m so glad Pitt an old BE team won the league this year.

I don't think our schools fit well in a conference together, but you and your BE brethren are NOT the problem with the ACC. It sucked before you joined, which as you noted you had little choice but to do. And the divisions you just laid out are exactly what I've always said we should have, and what would make sense. Welcome to the ACC, where Duke, UVA & UNC are usually why we can't have nice things.

(01-13-2022 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 07:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 03:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 10:24 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Framing it as Aresco is a false flag. Thompson from the MWC negotiated the 6 + 6 model not Aresco. The G5 are hanging together on this point as are Notre Dame and the SEC. The SEC wants that third at-large team each year. Having a 8-4 16th ranked P5 conference Champ get a bid over a 12-0 or 11-1 11th ranked G5 Champ reduces their chances of that 3rd at-large bid.

I dont really completely disagree---I absolutely concede that Thompson likely much prefers the original 6+6 proposal (and have made that point several times before). I suspect ALL the G5 commissioners prefer the 6+6 version. However, I suspect Thompson (and the other G5 commissioners outside of Aresco) would have less objection to the 5+1+6 compromise than Aresco. Its Aresco that absolutely positively wants to avoid being lumped in with the other 4 G5 conferences and has spent substantial time, treasure, and energy pushing his P6 narrative (with some success I might add). In the end, I think its Aresco who would be the most likely G5 hold out. That said, as I have stated before---I do think Aresco will have to eventually give in at this next meeting and I suspect he will win some sort of concession for giving in. It might be a guaranteed bowl game--or it could be a more behind the scenes "inside baseball" concession where the AAC gets to negotiate its share of the pie separately from the other G5's---thus giving the AAC some contractual and structural basis for claiming they are not part of a "G5" (due to not being part of the G5 payout "pool").

I don't think Aresco will have to give in, because I think he has the SEC on his side.

That's a nice thing to have on your side.

And Notre Dame and the Big 12. At a worst case they say fine we will have a playoff with the SEC, Big 12, Notre Dame, and all the G5 + BYU. The SEC will kick ass but they would have kicked ass anyway. The alliance can work to play themselves.

If that happens who do you think caves first? PAC, BIG or ACC?

I honestly do not have a good idea as to how all this will play out. Mainly because some big things I thought I knew have not played out. I did not anticipate that the SEC getting TX and OU would cause the other P5 conferences to reevaluate the original Working Group expansion proposal. And once they did, I assumed that the B1G would not stick with the Alliance for very long, as from my POV, they and the SEC have the same interests here.

One thing I still do think is that the SEC's opposition to P5 autobids is deeper and stronger than many around here believe it is.

It's culture, culture, culture. B1G does not perceive themselves in the same light as the SEC. Culturally,academically, and mores.

(01-13-2022 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 07:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 03:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 10:24 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Framing it as Aresco is a false flag. Thompson from the MWC negotiated the 6 + 6 model not Aresco. The G5 are hanging together on this point as are Notre Dame and the SEC. The SEC wants that third at-large team each year. Having a 8-4 16th ranked P5 conference Champ get a bid over a 12-0 or 11-1 11th ranked G5 Champ reduces their chances of that 3rd at-large bid.

I dont really completely disagree---I absolutely concede that Thompson likely much prefers the original 6+6 proposal (and have made that point several times before). I suspect ALL the G5 commissioners prefer the 6+6 version. However, I suspect Thompson (and the other G5 commissioners outside of Aresco) would have less objection to the 5+1+6 compromise than Aresco. Its Aresco that absolutely positively wants to avoid being lumped in with the other 4 G5 conferences and has spent substantial time, treasure, and energy pushing his P6 narrative (with some success I might add). In the end, I think its Aresco who would be the most likely G5 hold out. That said, as I have stated before---I do think Aresco will have to eventually give in at this next meeting and I suspect he will win some sort of concession for giving in. It might be a guaranteed bowl game--or it could be a more behind the scenes "inside baseball" concession where the AAC gets to negotiate its share of the pie separately from the other G5's---thus giving the AAC some contractual and structural basis for claiming they are not part of a "G5" (due to not being part of the G5 payout "pool").

I don't think Aresco will have to give in, because I think he has the SEC on his side.

That's a nice thing to have on your side.

And Notre Dame and the Big 12. At a worst case they say fine we will have a playoff with the SEC, Big 12, Notre Dame, and all the G5 + BYU. The SEC will kick ass but they would have kicked ass anyway. The alliance can work to play themselves.

If that happens who do you think caves first? PAC, BIG or ACC?

I honestly do not have a good idea as to how all this will play out. Mainly because some big things I thought I knew have not played out. I did not anticipate that the SEC getting TX and OU would cause the other P5 conferences to reevaluate the original Working Group expansion proposal. And once they did, I assumed that the B1G would not stick with the Alliance for very long, as from my POV, they and the SEC have the same interests here.

One thing I still do think is that the SEC's opposition to P5 autobids is deeper and stronger than many around here believe it is.

It's culture, culture, culture. B1G does not perceive themselves in the same light as the SEC. Culturally, academically, and mores.

(01-14-2022 07:54 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 07:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

When has FSU ever played against the “big boys”? They routinely had soft schedules in the 80’s with two or three marquee games. The ACC was a step up because the competition was stiffer than their Indy schedules plus they got into the best basketball conference.

I hate to break it to you, but you guys would be looking forward to Vandy and Mizzou in the SEC because they’re the only teams you’d be competitive with at this time.

No, joining the ACC for then-annual matchups with Duke, Wake, UVA, UNC, etc. was not a "step up" in competition on our football schedule. You probably aren't very familiar with FSU's football history from the Independent days, before we foolishly allowed ourselves to be sewn onto Conference Frankenstein. Bobby Bowden built Florida State into what it used to be on the reputation of being willing to play anyone, anytime and anywhere. Let's take a look at who we played in 1980s regular season games-

1989 - Clemson, LSU, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1988 - Miami, Clemson, Michigan State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida
1987 - Texas Tech, Michigan State, Miami, Auburn, Florida
1986 - Nebraska, North Carolina, Michigan, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1985 - Nebraska, Kansas, Auburn, North Carolina, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1984 - Kansas, Miami, Auburn, Arizona State, South Carolina, Florida
1983 - LSU, Auburn, Pitt, Arizona State, South Carolina, Miami, Florida
1982 - Pitt, Ohio State, Miami, South Carolina, LSU, Florida
1981 - Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, LSU, Miami, Florida
1980 - LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Pitt, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Florida

Indeed at this point in the SEC we would certainly take our lumps, as we have in the ACC the last few years. Mizzou & Vanderbilt could both be tough outs for FSU right now. But if we ever get the opportunity to undo Bobby's greatest mistake, I have every confidence that the excitement and the resources that will follow that move will see FSU poised to reascend to the top of college football. Will it be like we dominated the ACC in the 90s? No, it won't. Saban & Alabama don't dominate the SEC like that now, and nobody is ever likely to.

While those are some great names, not all of those games were against great teams.

When you go back and do a little research what one finds is that FSU played an average of 3 top 10 teams a year in the early 80's and that this dropped by the end of the decade, before joining the ACC.

80 - 3 Top 10 games according to final AP rankings
81 - 2 Top 10 and 2 more top 15 according to AP final rankings
82 - 1 Top 10, 2 top 15
83 - 3 Top 10
84 - 2 Top 10
85 - 2 Top 10 1 top 15
86 - 2 Top 10
87 - 2 Top 10
88 - 2 Top 10
89 - 2 Top 10, 1 Top 15
90 - 1 Top 10, 2 Top 20
91 - 3 Top 10, 1 Top 25

Anytime, anywhere sounds bold until you factor in the 6-5 record of the school you beat. To give this more perspective, FSU played 1 Top 10, and 3 Top 20 this year, 2021. ND 8, Clemson 14, WF 15, and NC State 20.

In that 12 year span, Miami finished as a ranked top 10 team 7 or 8 times. FSU was very, very dependent on that game against top 10 Miami, even if they could rarely win it.

But as with so many things, an idea is much easier to remember than actual facts, and actual research that kills a good story is tossed in the garbage in favor of the good story.

What you had most of all for that time before the ACC was the ability to shape your own schedule, to pencil in the breaks you needed against a program that still had a name if no longer a top program. You also had variety and very few trips north of the Mason-Dixon line.

That's the major issue with the ACC right now, NC State playing Louisville, BC, and Syracuse every year instead of GT, Virginia, or VT. Nothing personal against the first three, but there are few recruits there and it can be damn cold there in November. Every other year would be just fine. Then you are going to Louisville, or Syracuse or Boston just once every 4 years and you aren't going to Atlanta and Durham just once every 12 years.

(01-14-2022 07:54 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 07:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The other revenue problem is local. Because it is at heart a basketball-first conference, at most of its schools, its football fan base isn't as good as its football programs are. Clemson, FSU and Miami are great exceptions, but particularly within the Carolina Core, those schools are better at producing NFL players than drawing the kinds of huge crowds to football games and the booster and donor money that follows. Even football-first schools like FSU and Miami have soft fan support - crowds are large when the team is dominant, but quickly dwindle when they are not. This is a big problem, because for all the focus on playoff and media money, at the highest revenue schools, it is still local money that is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I agree, this is a huge part of my unhappiness with FSU in the ACC. It's only fun when you're dominating and have legitimate national aspirations. In the SEC even if you're down, you're playing better teams most weeks and hoping against hope to upset one of the big boys. And the fans would definitely fill Doak Campbell to see Alabama or Georgia, even if the Noles were expected to lose.
In the ACC if you're not dominating, then you have "winnable" games against say NC State or Boston College to look forward to, which just aren't that interesting win or lose. The ACC simply does not offer a compelling football experience.

When has FSU ever played against the “big boys”? They routinely had soft schedules in the 80’s with two or three marquee games. The ACC was a step up because the competition was stiffer than their Indy schedules plus they got into the best basketball conference.

I hate to break it to you, but you guys would be looking forward to Vandy and Mizzou in the SEC because they’re the only teams you’d be competitive with at this time.

No, joining the ACC for then-annual matchups with Duke, Wake, UVA, UNC, etc. was not a "step up" in competition on our football schedule. You probably aren't very familiar with FSU's football history from the Independent days, before we foolishly allowed ourselves to be sewn onto Conference Frankenstein. Bobby Bowden built Florida State into what it used to be on the reputation of being willing to play anyone, anytime and anywhere. Let's take a look at who we played in 1980s regular season games-

1989 - Clemson, LSU, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1988 - Miami, Clemson, Michigan State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida
1987 - Texas Tech, Michigan State, Miami, Auburn, Florida
1986 - Nebraska, North Carolina, Michigan, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1985 - Nebraska, Kansas, Auburn, North Carolina, Miami, South Carolina, Florida
1984 - Kansas, Miami, Auburn, Arizona State, South Carolina, Florida
1983 - LSU, Auburn, Pitt, Arizona State, South Carolina, Miami, Florida
1982 - Pitt, Ohio State, Miami, South Carolina, LSU, Florida
1981 - Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, LSU, Miami, Florida
1980 - LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Pitt, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Florida

Indeed at this point in the SEC we would certainly take our lumps, as we have in the ACC the last few years. Mizzou & Vanderbilt could both be tough outs for FSU right now. But if we ever get the opportunity to undo Bobby's greatest mistake, I have every confidence that the excitement and the resources that will follow that move will see FSU poised to reascend to the top of college football. Will it be like we dominated the ACC in the 90s? No, it won't. Saban & Alabama don't dominate the SEC like that now, and nobody is ever likely to.

My apologies, those schedules aren’t as bad as I thought but you’re not really listing teams that are better than the majority of the ACC. Duke and Wake? Fine pick on them but don’t act like you guys weren’t scheduling Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, and Louisville in the same season.

80’s SC was weak. VaTech was not where they were in the 90’s. Kansas?!? 80’s Texas Tech?!? C’mon man you guys were beating some of these teams you listed by 50! They were not the programs they are now.

FSU went to ACC over the SEC because of three reasons, in no particular order:
1) Better academics. ACC was way better then and its way better now. FSU wanted to raise its academic profile. It worked.
2) Worse football. The football program had already arrived at FSU. The ACC was much more manageable, they could dominate. It did for a long while.
3) Better hoops. The ACC would raise the basketball profile at FSU. The SEC was UK and the 9 dwarves at the time. That worked out too.

No one could foresee the collapse of FSU football and the explosion of media rights. Academic employees make these decisions. It was the obvious choice AT THE TIME. Hindsight is 20/20. If they had chosen differently, football may be better off. Basketball and academics would likely not have seen the same advancement.

(01-15-2022 12:37 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  FSU went to ACC over the SEC because of three reasons, in no particular order:
1) Better academics. ACC was way better then and its way better now. FSU wanted to raise its academic profile. It worked.
2) Worse football. The football program had already arrived at FSU. The ACC was much more manageable, they could dominate. It did for a long while.
3) Better hoops. The ACC would raise the basketball profile at FSU. The SEC was UK and the 9 dwarves at the time. That worked out too.

No one could foresee the collapse of FSU football and the explosion of media rights. Academic employees make these decisions. It was the obvious choice AT THE TIME. Hindsight is 20/20. If they had chosen differently, football may be better off. Basketball and academics would likely not have seen the same advancement.

“Better acadmics” probably kept it there in the last pass. It certainly wasn’t money. I’m not sure I’ll ever be convinced on Barron’s words alone that FSU actually explored SEC membership during the buy-out increase and GOR thing. Nobody with stroke in the SEC is saying “nope, we told Florida State to kick rocks” from that time. Barron, in how those conversations with upset stakeholders were presented in print-form always read to me that he used a SEC leader’s statement on a related topic to shield Eric from doing deep due diligence with that conference.

Then Eric skipped town for Happy Valley. I would have LOVED to have seen what he would have been put through further over the past several years. You can’t fault him for saying the ACC puts the school in with these other academic forces to help enrich FSU’s enrollment profile, but, no, I don’t think he was EVER good for the work in helping FSU get better money. He “thought like a college president,” as he was, and kept it faculty/academic-style. His “due diligence” was letting Swofford into the circle to hard sell the critics.

(01-16-2022 12:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 12:37 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  FSU went to ACC over the SEC because of three reasons, in no particular order:
1) Better academics. ACC was way better then and its way better now. FSU wanted to raise its academic profile. It worked.
2) Worse football. The football program had already arrived at FSU. The ACC was much more manageable, they could dominate. It did for a long while.
3) Better hoops. The ACC would raise the basketball profile at FSU. The SEC was UK and the 9 dwarves at the time. That worked out too.

No one could foresee the collapse of FSU football and the explosion of media rights. Academic employees make these decisions. It was the obvious choice AT THE TIME. Hindsight is 20/20. If they had chosen differently, football may be better off. Basketball and academics would likely not have seen the same advancement.

“Better acadmics” probably kept it there in the last pass. It certainly wasn’t money. I’m not sure I’ll ever be convinced on Barron’s words alone that FSU actually explored SEC membership during the buy-out increase and GOR thing. Nobody with stroke in the SEC is saying “nope, we told Florida State to kick rocks” from that time. Barron, in how those conversations with upset stakeholders were presented in print-form always read to me that he used a SEC leader’s statement on a related topic to shield Eric from doing deep due diligence with that conference.

Then Eric skipped town for Happy Valley. I would have LOVED to have seen what he would have been put through further over the past several years. You can’t fault him for saying the ACC puts the school in with these other academic forces to help enrich FSU’s enrollment profile, but, no, I don’t think he was EVER good for the work in helping FSU get better money. He “thought like a college president,” as he was, and kept it faculty/academic-style. His “due diligence” was letting Swofford into the circle to hard sell the critics.

I am right with you! That would have been far more entertaining to watch than FSU football has been the past few years. To the extent there is a single villain, I blame Eric Barron the most. He is the fool who signed the initial GoR instead of bailing out when Maryland escaped.