(03-04-2024 07:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  The reality is we would have needed to invite Penn State, Florida State, Miami, and Texas in order to keep up with the swarm of SEC and Big Ten t-shirt fans that drive media contracts.


* and even that might not have been enough

Three of the four would have been fine.

Texas had two albatrosses within the ACC, first Duke, UVa, and UNC did not want Oklahoma because OU used to cheat like Hell since the 1940's and they could hide an academic moron without violating their own admissions policy. Second, UNC in particular was fearful of what Texas would do to the cost of competition in the ACC.

Y'all keep in mind that unlimited crazy spending is not a Tidewater Atlantic social value even if you have money.

Texas is not coming to the ACC without OU. Getting Texas and TAMU is like catching two marlins on single cast with a single hook - it ain't happening like that unless one of them jumps in the boat.

For the record, I never liked the idea of bringing in UT. But I like the idea of UT and OU going to the SEC even less.

It's important that folks realize that Duke destabilizes an athletic conference over time with a combination of unlimited money and policy demands that are hyper-elitist. They were not invited to the SoCon in 1921. They helped to facilitate the end of the SoCon as the de facto ACC in 1953. They changed the ACC with the 800 SAT rule in 1962. They chased South Carolina out of the conference. They espoused anti expansion sentiment that kept all but GT out for 35 years. They de-emphasized football in the mid 1960's and kept it that way for 45 years. They helped to undermine the athletic programs at Clemson, MD, SC, and NC State.

Is Duke a "bad actor"?

Not really, the problem is that Duke and UVa are Ivy League schools trapped in the ACC. This problem predates and creates the issues with South Carolina, creates the condition (along with Bob James sudden death) of losing touch with PSU.

It's a structural issue within the SoCon/ACC that has never changed.

If Duke leaves for the Ivy when the Ivy forms in the mid - 50's, they take UVa with them. (Just imagine Jim Crow apartied is not written into the law in Virginia)

That leaves a break away group of just MD, UNC, NC State, WF, Clemson, and SC. They want to keep the Orange Bowl Bid. There is one school that they are not pissed off and not located in bumfoozle no where - Miami. Miami already has a solid playing history with these schools. Miami gets you to 7 in the mid 1950's and probably helps to prevent the conference from being totally Greensboro-centric. The ACC did not play a round robin football schedule until 1969. Just seven schools makes this easier, sooner. FSU will be on Miami's doorstep every week attempting to gain entrance and without Duke and UVa to poo-poo them they have a high likely hood of making it in prior to the mid-60's when GT and Tulane leave the SEC. With Miami and FSU in the ACC, both Tulane and GT probably seek out the ACC sooner rather than later. When VT finishes Lane stadium that are voted back in and around 1970. SC never leaves.

An ACC at 11 in 1980 but without Duke and UVa, is a conference looking for a 12th. Your guess is as good as mine between Pitt and PSU if the choice is being made in 1985. Some will clamor for ND. I can see the ACC inviting both Pitt and PSU and allowing them to pick a 14th and they without Duke and UVa as impediments, likely help WVa return.

That gives you a 14 school ACC with PSU, Pitt, WVa, MD, VT, UNC, NC State in the north and WF, SC, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, and Tulane in the south.

Big 10 expansion to 14 is in population rich Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, and Nebraska.

SEC expansion is Arkansas, Mizzou, TAMU and Kansas to get to 14.

Now when the B12 and P12 contracts come to an end in 2024, Texas, OU, USC, and Washington can form their own conference effectively jettisoning WSU, OSU, and others.

The new Pac 10-16 with Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, and ASU in the west and Texas, OU, Colorado, TCU, and TT in the east. These 10 now dictate how it will be to Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and K-State by witholding their invite until the new 10 set the rules.

WSU, OSU, Baylor, Houston, Cincy, UCF and BYU are **** out of luck. iii

(03-04-2024 12:15 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  If Duke leaves for the Ivy when the Ivy forms in the mid - 50's, they take UVa with them. (Just imagine Jim Crow apartied is not written into the law in Virginia)

That leaves a break away group of just MD, UNC, NC State, WF, Clemson, and SC. They want to keep the Orange Bowl Bid. There is one school that they are not pissed off and not located in bumfoozle no where - Miami. Miami already has a solid playing history with these schools. Miami gets you to 7 in the mid 1950's and probably helps to prevent the conference from being totally Greensboro-centric. The ACC did not play a round robin football schedule until 1969. Just seven schools makes this easier, sooner. FSU will be on Miami's doorstep every week attempting to gain entrance and without Duke and UVa to poo-poo them they have a high likely hood of making it in prior to the mid-60's when GT and Tulane leave the SEC. With Miami and FSU in the ACC, both Tulane and GT probably seek out the ACC sooner rather than later. When VT finishes Lane stadium that are voted back in and around 1970. SC never leaves.

An ACC at 11 in 1980 but without Duke and UVa, is a conference looking for a 12th. Your guess is as good as mine between Pitt and PSU if the choice is being made in 1985. Some will clamor for ND. I can see the ACC inviting both Pitt and PSU and allowing them to pick a 14th and they without Duke and UVa as impediments, likely help WVa return.

That gives you a 14 school ACC with PSU, Pitt, WVa, MD, VT, UNC, NC State in the north and WF, SC, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, and Tulane in the south.

Big 10 expansion to 14 is in population rich Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, and Nebraska.

SEC expansion is Arkansas, Mizzou, TAMU and Kansas to get to 14.

Now when the B12 and P12 contracts come to an end in 2024, Texas, OU, USC, and Washington can form their own conference effectively jettisoning WSU, OSU, and others.

The new Pac 10-16 with Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, and ASU in the west and Texas, OU, Colorado, TCU, and TT in the east. These 10 now dictate how it will be to Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and K-State by witholding their invite until the new 10 set the rules.

WSU, OSU, Baylor, Houston, Cincy, UCF and BYU are **** out of luck. iii

In 1985, both Pitt and PSU would have turned down the ACC.

Perhaps the better year to time travel to would be 1992. After the SEC starts up a championship game, the ACC decides that is a good idea and get's to 12. Makes you wonder what a 13 year head start on realignment would have accomplished? SU and Miami were in their prime, BC had some cache, Virginia politics may have gotten VT in over FSU. That would have been a good football conference.

(03-04-2024 12:15 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  If Duke leaves for the Ivy when the Ivy forms in the mid - 50's, they take UVa with them. (Just imagine Jim Crow apartied is not written into the law in Virginia)

That leaves a break away group of just MD, UNC, NC State, WF, Clemson, and SC. They want to keep the Orange Bowl Bid. There is one school that they are not pissed off and not located in bumfoozle no where - Miami. Miami already has a solid playing history with these schools. Miami gets you to 7 in the mid 1950's and probably helps to prevent the conference from being totally Greensboro-centric. The ACC did not play a round robin football schedule until 1969. Just seven schools makes this easier, sooner. FSU will be on Miami's doorstep every week attempting to gain entrance and without Duke and UVa to poo-poo them they have a high likely hood of making it in prior to the mid-60's when GT and Tulane leave the SEC. With Miami and FSU in the ACC, both Tulane and GT probably seek out the ACC sooner rather than later. When VT finishes Lane stadium that are voted back in and around 1970. SC never leaves.

An ACC at 11 in 1980 but without Duke and UVa, is a conference looking for a 12th. Your guess is as good as mine between Pitt and PSU if the choice is being made in 1985. Some will clamor for ND. I can see the ACC inviting both Pitt and PSU and allowing them to pick a 14th and they without Duke and UVa as impediments, likely help WVa return.

That gives you a 14 school ACC with PSU, Pitt, WVa, MD, VT, UNC, NC State in the north and WF, SC, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, and Tulane in the south.

Big 10 expansion to 14 is in population rich Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, and Nebraska.

SEC expansion is Arkansas, Mizzou, TAMU and Kansas to get to 14.

Now when the B12 and P12 contracts come to an end in 2024, Texas, OU, USC, and Washington can form their own conference effectively jettisoning WSU, OSU, and others.

The new Pac 10-16 with Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, and ASU in the west and Texas, OU, Colorado, TCU, and TT in the east. These 10 now dictate how it will be to Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and K-State by witholding their invite until the new 10 set the rules.

WSU, OSU, Baylor, Houston, Cincy, UCF and BYU are **** out of luck. iii

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread - to "fix" the ACC, you have to do it at/before its inception. An ACC without Duke and UVA (and probably not enough votes to brink in Wake either) would eventually grow strong enough to fight the Big Ten and SEC straight up.

(03-04-2024 11:06 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  It's important that folks realize that Duke destabilizes an athletic conference over time with a combination of unlimited money and policy demands that are hyper-elitist. They were not invited to the SoCon in 1921. They helped to facilitate the end of the SoCon as the de facto ACC in 1953. They changed the ACC with the 800 SAT rule in 1962. They chased South Carolina out of the conference. They espoused anti expansion sentiment that kept all but GT out for 35 years. They de-emphasized football in the mid 1960's and kept it that way for 45 years. They helped to undermine the athletic programs at Clemson, MD, SC, and NC State.

Is Duke a "bad actor"?

Not really, the problem is that Duke and UVa are Ivy League schools trapped in the ACC. This problem predates and creates the issues with South Carolina, creates the condition (along with Bob James sudden death) of losing touch with PSU.

It's a structural issue within the SoCon/ACC that has never changed.

I can honestly see that with Duke, but, IMHO, UVa is a bit of a stretch considering it's a state school, although like GT, it may not act like it.

There's another common thread in this, IMO, and it's UNC. UNC loves playing Duke & UVa, although UNC's academics being thought of as "Ivy League" are definitely laughable to me, considering some of the things UNC has done in the past. The Ivy League would not have allowed what UNC allowed, again, IMO.

(03-04-2024 08:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 11:06 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  It's important that folks realize that Duke destabilizes an athletic conference over time with a combination of unlimited money and policy demands that are hyper-elitist. They were not invited to the SoCon in 1921. They helped to facilitate the end of the SoCon as the de facto ACC in 1953. They changed the ACC with the 800 SAT rule in 1962. They chased South Carolina out of the conference. They espoused anti expansion sentiment that kept all but GT out for 35 years. They de-emphasized football in the mid 1960's and kept it that way for 45 years. They helped to undermine the athletic programs at Clemson, MD, SC, and NC State.

Is Duke a "bad actor"?

Not really, the problem is that Duke and UVa are Ivy League schools trapped in the ACC. This problem predates and creates the issues with South Carolina, creates the condition (along with Bob James sudden death) of losing touch with PSU.

It's a structural issue within the SoCon/ACC that has never changed.

I can honestly see that with Duke, but, IMHO, UVa is a bit of a stretch considering it's a state school, although like GT, it may not act like it.

There's another common thread in this, IMO, and it's UNC. UNC loves playing Duke & UVa, although UNC's academics being thought of as "Ivy League" are definitely laughable to me, considering some of the things UNC has done in the past. The Ivy League would not have allowed what UNC allowed, again, IMO.

Why is cheating at UNC among athletes some sort of surprise? It's common at Yalehttps://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/02/07/cheating-at-yale-students-get-honest-about-academic-dishonesty/

: RECRUITED STUDENT ATHLETES

A total of 117 recruited athletes responded to the News’ survey, and out of those respondents, 22 percent reported cheating at some point in their Yale career, while 3 percent did not respond to the question. Eighteen percent of recruited athlete respondents reported using “study drugs,” and 20 percent did not answer — numbers higher than those for all respondents. Thirty-one percent of recruited athletes surveyed responded that they had copied problem set answers during the fall 2018 semester, and 14 percent did not respond to that question.

“It’s disheartening to hear that, but it’s not entirely surprising,” said Juma Sei ’22, a recruited member of the track team.

Sei said that he believes students at Yale often cheat because of the stress, especially when they save problem sets or other assignments for the last minute. Sei added that having to juggle classes, practices, games and homework while also balancing a social life makes being a student athlete “one of the most stressful things you can do” at Yale.

Professors agreed, noting that student athletes’ mandatory time commitments to their sports could be a possible reason for increased cheating rates among them.

Minsky said it may be difficult for students to “optimize everything,” adding that student athletes must invest countless hours in sports, so they might not have as much time for academics as a result. Stearns added that, as a professor, he generally believes that recruited athletes who feel particularly challenged by the competitiveness of Yale might “feel like they have to cheat in order to keep up.”


If the kids are cheating at Yale, Harvard, Columbia, etc, why would they not cheat at Carolina? Athletes have been cheating since the beginning of time. Making sure that a moron graduates who otherwise would have never been admitted is viewed as a responsibility of the faculty at Duke and UNC. You can hear that thought echoed in the above article about Yale.

The microbiology class at Carolina or nuclear engineering class at NC State is no easier just because an athlete is given an A on a geography paper. I think it was a Board Chair at Auburn who finally blew his top with the NCAA over a particular set of allegations about a kid with an IQ of about 80. He said something to the effect of "the NCAA can kiss our ass, we are going to give a degree to who we damn well please and he's not going to spend the rest of his life on the back end of a garbage truck".

I have the unique privileges of having attended UNC and NC State at the time necessary to have had a class with what was undoubtedly the the dumbest UNC athlete to ever be awarded a degree and the most immature athlete to grace NC State. Carolina gave their kid a degree. State flunked theirs out and both were proud of what they had done. I can tell you I have a Hell of lot more respect for what UNC did than what State did.

I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

(03-09-2024 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

In 1990 ACC basketball tournament books still mattered and the ACC was making more money than the SEC. When you add a school you lose ACC basketball tournament books that you use to reward your top donors. In 1990 you would have had a no vote on any expansion from Duke so it would then take just one more to nix SC or Clemson at that time. Carolina would have to had announced support for SC to get them back in the conference. In 1990 the old hands at UNC would still remember Frank McGuire and the issue of head coaches being their own AD's was still an issue.

In 1990 you can't add SC and VT at the same time. You can barely add FSU. If the ACC added Miami, FSU, and SC in 1990, the SEC responds by adding VT and Arkansas.

An ACC of Miami, FSU, SC, Clemson, GT, NC State, UNC, Duke, WF, UVa, and MD is now looking for a 12th out of Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va, ND, Louisville, and Cincinnati in the 2000 time frame.

This could be when the ACC actually lands ND on an agreement to play 6 conference games - 5 in their division and 1 rotating, leaving ND free to continue their relationship with USC, Navy, Stanford, Purdue, MSU, etc.

ACC West

ND, GT, WF, Clemson, FSU, UVa

ACC East

Miami, SC, NC State, UNC, Duke

Remember, round robin in the division is what matters, not the total number of league games.

(03-09-2024 12:27 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

In 1990 ACC basketball tournament books still mattered and the ACC was making more money than the SEC. When you add a school you lose ACC basketball tournament books that you use to reward your top donors. In 1990 you would have had a no vote on any expansion from Duke so it would then take just one more to nix SC or Clemson at that time. Carolina would have to had announced support for SC to get them back in the conference. In 1990 the old hands at UNC would still remember Frank McGuire and the issue of head coaches being their own AD's was still an issue.

In 1990 you can't add SC and VT at the same time. You can barely add FSU. If the ACC added Miami, FSU, and SC in 1990, the SEC responds by adding VT and Arkansas.

Not if Clemson sells it to the others as a necessity. Clemson makes the argument that they are taking one for the team by admitting SC and puts it in UVA’s court to make the same sacrifice. This is a matter of protecting their backyard and acquiring the football powers needed to compete in the post-1984 ruling world.

(03-09-2024 12:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:27 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

In 1990 ACC basketball tournament books still mattered and the ACC was making more money than the SEC. When you add a school you lose ACC basketball tournament books that you use to reward your top donors. In 1990 you would have had a no vote on any expansion from Duke so it would then take just one more to nix SC or Clemson at that time. Carolina would have to had announced support for SC to get them back in the conference. In 1990 the old hands at UNC would still remember Frank McGuire and the issue of head coaches being their own AD's was still an issue.

In 1990 you can't add SC and VT at the same time. You can barely add FSU. If the ACC added Miami, FSU, and SC in 1990, the SEC responds by adding VT and Arkansas.

Not if Clemson sells it to the others as a necessity. Clemson makes the argument that they are taking one for the team by admitting SC and puts it in UVA’s court to make the same sacrifice. This is a matter of protecting their backyard and acquiring the football powers needed to compete in the post-1984 ruling world.

The way to deal with the ACC Tournament tix is to simultaneously split the conference into 2 divisions, each with it's own 1st 2 rounds.

North plays 2 rounds in Greensboro to cut down to 2 teams.
South plays 2 rounds in Greenvills, SC to cut down to 2 teams.
The ACC Final Four meet in Charlotte for the semifinals and finals.
PLENTY OF TICKET BOOKS!

(03-09-2024 12:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:27 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

In 1990 ACC basketball tournament books still mattered and the ACC was making more money than the SEC. When you add a school you lose ACC basketball tournament books that you use to reward your top donors. In 1990 you would have had a no vote on any expansion from Duke so it would then take just one more to nix SC or Clemson at that time. Carolina would have to had announced support for SC to get them back in the conference. In 1990 the old hands at UNC would still remember Frank McGuire and the issue of head coaches being their own AD's was still an issue.

In 1990 you can't add SC and VT at the same time. You can barely add FSU. If the ACC added Miami, FSU, and SC in 1990, the SEC responds by adding VT and Arkansas.

Not if Clemson sells it to the others as a necessity. Clemson makes the argument that they are taking one for the team by admitting SC and puts it in UVA’s court to make the same sacrifice. This is a matter of protecting their backyard and acquiring the football powers needed to compete in the post-1984 ruling world.

As one of the three red headed step children, Clemson was never going to sell anything to the ACC. Period. End of sentence.

Clemson at that time is coming off probation related to getting caught giving kids some cash money. I have always suspected Georgia or SC as the tipster but bad blood was created between State and Clemson when NC State's coaches were interviewed about it by the NCAA. Then Clemson got an extra year of probation from the ACC that they always wanted to blame on UNC and John Swofford, but the reality was that Clemson failed to appeal their league penalty and under the rules they got stuck with the second year. In the late 80's Georgia Tech and UVa are playing good enough football that SC had little attraction.

ACC Red Heads - NC State, SC from the adoption of 800 Rule to 1971, MD for it's last 20 years in the ACC, Clemson until Dabo.

ACC Blue Bloods - They run the league behinds the scenes - Duke, UVa, UNC

ACC Henchmen - Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

Although it may seem funny, you can use a color code even today. Who has blue in their colors - ND and Pitt with a little gold as well. . Who has red or orange - Miami and FSU.

Blue = The real power behind the ACC
Gold = The handmaidens or henchmen to the blues
Red or Orange = Them that get the short end of the political stick

Let's see if Stanford breaks this mold.

(03-09-2024 05:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:27 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ACC made a mistake in 1990 by not protecting their southern flank. They made a good move by making sure they won the Florida St derby but rather than the Clemson folks pushing SC into the arms of the SEC, they should have fought for their inclusion. Clemson was well aware of the 16-team megalith that Roy Kramer had in mind and the existential threat it posed. The ACC should have brought in South Carolina as well as Miami in 1990. Somewhere down the road or maybe contemporaneously VT should have been their #12.

This would have forced the SEC to look West for their #12 or settle for someone to the north like WVU or Louisville.

In 1990 ACC basketball tournament books still mattered and the ACC was making more money than the SEC. When you add a school you lose ACC basketball tournament books that you use to reward your top donors. In 1990 you would have had a no vote on any expansion from Duke so it would then take just one more to nix SC or Clemson at that time. Carolina would have to had announced support for SC to get them back in the conference. In 1990 the old hands at UNC would still remember Frank McGuire and the issue of head coaches being their own AD's was still an issue.

In 1990 you can't add SC and VT at the same time. You can barely add FSU. If the ACC added Miami, FSU, and SC in 1990, the SEC responds by adding VT and Arkansas.

Not if Clemson sells it to the others as a necessity. Clemson makes the argument that they are taking one for the team by admitting SC and puts it in UVA’s court to make the same sacrifice. This is a matter of protecting their backyard and acquiring the football powers needed to compete in the post-1984 ruling world.

The way to deal with the ACC Tournament tix is to simultaneously split the conference into 2 divisions, each with it's own 1st 2 rounds.

North plays 2 rounds in Greensboro to cut down to 2 teams.
South plays 2 rounds in Greenvills, SC to cut down to 2 teams.
The ACC Final Four meet in Charlotte for the semifinals and finals.
PLENTY OF TICKET BOOKS!

You can't double sell the finals and semi-final tickets using this matrix. When you are an Iron Duke or Super Ram, etc., you are paying that extra $20-40K to get at least 2 books that include tickets to the finals and semi finals. This is why the day after it was announced that GT was joining the ACC about 2000 UNC fans joined GTAA.

That ticket for the finals was for the right to go to the NCAA until 1980. It was for everything between 1954 and 1980. Even from 80 to the mid 90's unless you had a top 25 ranking you probably needed that title game to the an NCAA bid. The ACC final day ticket would have been second only to the Masters Final Day pass as far as prestige events in Va, NC, SC, and Georgia because of the absolute scarcity. If the Braves made the World Series, they likely would play two games at least in Atlanta.

You were also buying your place in the social pecking order because part of the event was the people in the concourse and your section and in the parking lots. If you were seen there, you were somebody.