I just don't think adding 2 west coast schools is enough unfortunately. If
only there would have been proactive ACC leadership, when it was needed months ago, the ACC could have probably gotten Arizona, Arizona St and Utah (or 1 Arizona school, Utah and Colorado)...instead of them going to the B12! This would have been a decent pod of western teams and helped them (and ACC schools) with the travel nightmare that looms ahead for all involved! Adding a Texas school like SMU is a good idea....BUT again....where was ACC leadership when other higher profile Texas schools were available? It's completely infuriating to have inept leaders running this conference!
23 Replies
2y
People act like this is a race to have the most schools...like because everyone else is expanding, the ACC has to.
Is the ACC plus whatever 4 or so west coast-ish schools really any stronger than the current ACC?
(In response to this post by hoodat)
2y
I do not have a strong opinion.
I think it is probably worth it to boost the money to each school by having a West Coast slot. And, it's probably a short term solution for everybody. I'd enjoy a couple new faces.
I do not buy that academics should even be a consideration for why sports teams should be linked across the longitudinal axis of the USofA.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Academics absolutely shouldn't be a consideration (and I don't buy that it is). It really makes no sense.
(In response to this post by Seikoh_04)
2y
Not earth shattering but also not in a position to turn down money.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Colorado had one foot in The Big 12 the day Prime was hired. That was the gate through which the others entered.
(In response to this post by hoodat)
2y
No one cares about SMU in Dallas
(In response to this post by hoodat)
2y
That's a lifetime.
By then, maybe they get a better deal, maybe schools leave, maybe schools come.
They did reach out to Washington and Oregon. They were not interested.
(In response to this post by hoodat)
We didn't hear a peep about the ACC being interested in the West Coast
until all the decent brands were gone from the Pac. Then all of a sudden we are hearing about all these different scenarios, meetings and straw votes to bring in Stanford and Cal? Where was all this action when UW an UO were available?
I consider the ACC as we know it to be dead in 2036 (if somehow not sooner). VT should plan accordingly. In the interim, we need to make more money, whatever that might look like, and do what's right for VT.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 8/24/2023, 9:05:08 AM
(In response to this post by hoodat)
2y
So there was at least some thought there. No execution, though. Would have been difficult with PAC’s $ demands and then B1G on the table.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HOO86
2y
Honestly don't know what the man is doing.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
does not operate in public, like FSU. But it is uncharitable to assume he is not seeking opportunities and proposing moves. He is bound by legalities in who he may approach.
Make just one good suggestion that you think he has overlooked.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
2y
Said it 2 years ago, but that ship has now sailed. He's left doing basically all that is left available. The SMU move is actually one I was also in favor of 2 years ago with Memphis or Tulane. I do believe we'll need more to fill in now so we don't have 2 outliers. I was not for going all the way to California, but it appears that is just what we will be doing. Tulane may show up again on the radar one day, but with Academic Powerhouses like appears to be coming, we'll probably look at Rice instead of Memphis. Probably won't see another Louisville.
Doing nothing was not an option. The ACC needs to expand to survive. If FSU wants to pay big bucks to leave, then look at USF. I don't believe Clemson is going anywhere. They may, but I doubt it.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
moving backwards. Just adding more, and more, and more schools isn't the same a improving.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
2y
Let them a) bring only who they want, b) get preferential scheduling treatment, c) re-work revenue distribution to reward performance, and d) keep going until you get a ‘yes.’
Sound bad? ACC could arguably be in a P3 versus adding these 3 doormats with ticking time bomb strapped to its chest.
Just some ideas that likely wouldn’t have worked. I didn’t bag on Philips/presidents until this latest maneuver.
Think ACC tried this with Texas a while ago. Re-play conference realignment if the ACC had hooked Texas.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
V
VTCALS72
2y
that trying to create a 3rd top level conference is already a lost cause. Maybe they are keeping their powder dry for the "new" true college conference. In the end that may well be the better strategy than what the B12 is doing.
Eventually it will be only the 2 conferences and even they may be dismantled in the "pro" division and there does not appear to be any power to stop that. That power would be just like what ESPN is doing with pennies for the ACC to take certain teams.
I see the B12 as in the worst position possible to produce a "college" division" product. Way too big and covers way too much ground especially when the TV money shrinks to a trickle.
(In response to this post by hoodat)
2y
That is if desired by others. By then heck many many want to be back in west. Travel issues will make some wished they went different road.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
(In response to this post by hoodat)
they sit on their hands a lot
(In response to this post by hoodat)