To me this point makes no sense. If they can get in at 4 they could easily get in if it were 8 or 12. This seems like a null point.
The ACC is all about Clemson, or so it seems.....
- Thread starter fowl_mood
- Start date
I don't see that as my problem. I just disagree with his rationale, and if Stankey agrees with him, I disagree with him too.
I don't agree with Sankey or Phillips either. I was surprised at Phillips position moreso than Sankey's though.
Thank you. That's my whole point. Consistency.
Some may use the "but these guys will go on to a pro career don't need to beat up their bodies in advance."
Remember, most student athletes go pro in "something else." Notwithstanding that, that's not the NCAA's problem.
Clemson is controlling the conference now...the ACC's downfall was having John Swofford from UNC as the ACC Commissioner...he did all things favorable to UNC...
I think because of that, you will never see a Commissioner of a conference from a school they once represented as an athletic director...IMO because of his expansion flaws (private schools and public schools in the northeast US) he HURT the ACC BIG TIME....
SEC is made up of State Flagship and Major Land Grant Institutions...
I don't feel sorry for the ACC at ALL...shame on Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech for not seeking better...
Live by the sword, Die by the sword...
I think because of that, you will never see a Commissioner of a conference from a school they once represented as an athletic director...IMO because of his expansion flaws (private schools and public schools in the northeast US) he HURT the ACC BIG TIME....
SEC is made up of State Flagship and Major Land Grant Institutions...
I don't feel sorry for the ACC at ALL...shame on Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech for not seeking better...
Live by the sword, Die by the sword...
Absolutely. The point is that clemson can get in at 4, 8 or 12. However teams that they recruit against for high-level recruits may only be able to make the playoffs at 8 or maybe only at 12, but not at 4.
Those teams still won’t win it so I don’t see a recruiting advantage there at all. Are those teams putting talent in the nfl? Is that talent excelling?
Can’t they do that at Clemson with a better chance to make it to the big dance? Still don’t see the recruiting advantage.
Rather than poaching the BE, the ACC should have worked out some sort of "cooperative" operations, much like the PAC12 & the B1G.
Travelling to College Station, TX, & Columbia, MO for conference competition is absurd. Travelling to College Park, MD is far enough.
Vandy is all that's left of the non-State Flagship and Major Land Grant Institution SEC members. Georgia Tech was much like Auburn, and Tulane was much like Vandy. Sewanee was much like Davidson College, except that when they left the SEC, they went to the D-III equivalent of 1940.
I do agree that the commissioner should be someone who takes the position from a role at a member institution. And the AD at a school ideally, IMO, should also not be someone who was the head coach of any sport at the school.
That's fuzzier than a groundhog. I don't believe in manipulation by some authority to engineer results - in anything. I don't care who does it.
I say that a lot can happen when a coaching change occurs, or when people get the idea that one is impending. Look how long it took for Alabama to regain leverage after Stallings, and between Bryant and Stallings. Look at recent developments at Oklahoma and UPC. There are situations at play that people can exploit, and for which they could be rewarded, if they are good enough to do it.
That in itself would be manipulation. Whatever the number of teams involved, they ought to be the absolute best available.
That’s where you and I disagree. I am for the championship model. Throw all ten conference champs in a pool and let them play it out. No at large. You must win your conference.
Agree. Bad coaching can muck up great programs. But the idea that SC and teams like Alabama, UGA, etc. start off on a level playing field is completely inaccurate. There's nothing much we do can about that part. But what we can do is avoid promoting systems that widen this gap like the 4-team CFP.
I somewhat agree with your assessment...I like the states we are in now...I just wish we could somehow get NCSU and VT in the conference and no more expansion....we would absolutely lock up the entire south and CHOKE the ACC for good...
Swofford in hindsight should've done his best to get us, kept Maryland, and maybe tried to lure WVU with possibly Penn State or Rutgers....Swofford at that point would have locked up a school in each state along the Eastern Seaboard without loading up on all those private schools and NE schools....Had he tried to get us, WVU and PSU, he would have built more of a football conference to go along with basketball....This is just my opinion...What a FOOL Swofford was and the ACC an even bigger FOOL for hiring him...
Last edited:
Yes, we disagree, but thankfully there is no acrimony.
I liked our 8-member ACC as it was. No need to travel excessively long distances for conference matchups. You play each conference member at least once in each sport every year. Still leaves you lots of room for good OOC matchups in all (most?) sports. And it would give our rivalry with Clemron more meaning.
I think that Pitt, Penn State, West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, UCONN, Rutgers, and VPI could have made a nice Big East all sports conference. And sure, the ACC could have had some sort of informal arrangement where member schools were "encouraged" to schedule a BE member on the gridiron each year. And have a nice bowl tie-in for the second place finishers in each conference (the champs dance in a real playoff)
When F$U opted for the ACC in 1990, and then the SEC invited us, it was all over. No going back. I read where, when the ACC was busy poaching the BE, they made informal, back-channel inquiries as to whether or not we were interested in coming back. They were 20 years too late.
Maryland administration stated that they left the ACC for the B1G for the $$$. I think there has to be more to it than that. If it was strictly $$$, what could Swofford have done? You have to distribute the proceeds equally (I think Big XII, the Longhorn Network, and s***w everybody else).
I really buy Maryland's move being money-related. They were actually having to put sports on the chopping block and it was a huge boost in money.
The year a lower seed wins the NC, everyone will be ecstatic that the CFP was expanded. It’s going to happen, just a matter of when, if they’ll expand the CFP.
Cinderella wears slippers every March, there’s always a team that wins and advances. We were that team in 2017. Gonzaga was Cinderella for years. Villanova beat Georgetown in the NC and one year, had “no chance”, yet took the title that night!
One of the best aspects of sports is that underdogs win sometimes.
Agree totally. College football is a bit of a drag once the regular season is done. I think many folks tune out, and it's hard to get them back with the wall of noise from the media regarding the selections. There is not even the appearance somebody different will rise to the top.
It wasn't the athletic money from TV revenues that lured UMD to the Big Ten. It was the billions in research money controlled by the Big Ten consortium (Big Ten Academic Alliance) on the academic side of the conference. The athletic money is a pittance compared to the research money available to the member schools......eventhough the athletic revenue of the Big Ten is still greater than every other conference. Same reason you won't ever get Penn State to leave the conference.
Has Maryland started receiving any of the B1G $$$?
Following your train of thought, I do feel a bit sorry for the folks in College Park and their financial/athletic dilemma. Other than no longer playing their old rivals, switching to the B1G seems to have made no difference in athletic performance. Maybe some of that B1G $$$ will have an effect in the coming years.
Didn’t the founder of Under Armor influence that decision? Don’t remember his reasoning
As far as the Big Ten network money.....yes, and I believe it is still more than the SEC pays its members.
As far as the BTAA research dollars, I think both they and Penn State are considered to have fulle memberships and can fully participate. None of that money is used on athletics however. It is all academic research funds that improve the university.
This is something that Dan Patrick nailed earlier in the fall when he asked, "Is there anything more predictable than college football?" Ouch!
This makes sense, rogue cock.
The Big Ten consortium lured Nebraska too. And until it was recently restructured, the consortium also included the University of Chicago. Chicago was a charter member of the B1G, but dropped out right after WWII. They are D-III. Sounds similar to Sewanee leaving the SEC.
The 8-member BE fantasy league I mentioned would have had to have happened before Penn State joined the B1G. An even then, I could see State College getting lured away by the opportunities presented by the B1G.
Everything I've read regarding Florida State joining the ACC had to do with the academic opportunities offered.
Yes, they have. At present, they get more money from their league than we get from ours, by something on the order of $9 million a year. They didn't have to give up women's lacrosse or whatever.
I imagine the Alliance dollars started flowing to Maryland and Rutgers shortly after they joined. I was thinking about BTN and other athletic revenues.
Not to be argumentative, but the Maryland AD and president both cited the higher Big 10 payout at the time as being instrumental in the move. I don't rule out anything you said.
I think an expanded playoff will probably not yield any "new" champions in the first several years. (And it is a matter when, and not if, the playoff will expand.)
I also think there will be some more blowouts in the short term. And the detractors will point and say "I told you so." (It will still be a ratings bonanza.)
But I believe when more teams have something big to play for (and more importantly, they will be covered and discussed a lot more by the national sports media) then this could mitigate the compounding advantages the usual suspects have gained by being in the CFP in its current form.
I also think there will be some more blowouts in the short term. And the detractors will point and say "I told you so." (It will still be a ratings bonanza.)
But I believe when more teams have something big to play for (and more importantly, they will be covered and discussed a lot more by the national sports media) then this could mitigate the compounding advantages the usual suspects have gained by being in the CFP in its current form.
Other factors would inevitably mitigate those supposed factors, as I have pointed out. But people don't want to wait for it to happen. Other people want their pretenders in there now.
Of course it will be a blowout when Alabama hosts Sun Belt champion Troy St. in a first-round playoff game in Tuscaloosa. But like basketball, it gives Trojan fans something to cheer about as a "reward" for the team winning the Sun Belt championship.
Chicago was "replaced" by Michigan State when the Spartans joined the league in 1949.
Those factors absolutely could help to mitigate things. But I agree with the other poster that their advantages are being compounded by the national media in an unprecedented way in this current setup. .
Besides that, the ratings have been plummeting in recent years. If there is no effort to consistently include teams from all over the country, then the rest of the country will just keep tuning out.
