Mele Kalikimaka 🎄 ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 9/25/2024, 10:43:30 PM

But the ACC just let them join another conference. After them, one of the Nevada schools. I prefer Reno, but am OK with Vegas. ** Edited by HOO86 at 9/25/2024, 7:41:55 PM

west coast league due to, in part, academics? I don't think they were interested in working with Oregon State and Wazzu, not to mention Fresno, SDSU and others out west? They could have been part of the Pac-4 foundation, but chose not to. So I'm not sure why they'd want a bunch of west coast academic undesirables in the ACC. Might be wrong though.

They are at 105 in USNWR. Borderline acceptable. All of the rest are worse. That's why I suggest them. In addition, the ACC would get Southern California presence. You're right though. Academically it is slim pickin's out west. Nevada-Reno is same as Louisville.

best academics of D1 football and basketball available, and some decent success in both. Not to mention how games there will help ND, Stanford and Cal recruit there, and the last two for scheduling Olympic Sports. The other one might be Oregon State. This one to me is a lot like not going after WVU and Cincinnati in the East. Is Jim Phillips attitude on expansion similar to Dabo Sweeney on the portal? 🤷‍♂️

M

For the the teams to go to the Big 10 and Big 12, they had to leave behind the investments in the PAC 12 to the residual members instead of disbursement. In the court settlement, Oregon St and Wash St, was given 2 years to re-establsh the conference. If not they lose it. ACC also made a good deal with Stanford Cal and SMU, with no rights for 5 years. I dont think Oregon St and Wash St can afford it nor does ACC want to reopen this with Stanford Cal and SMU

Maybe Utah, ASU, OSU, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado and Texas Tech? Can we get Jeff Bezos to fund that raid since we are tight with Amazon now? LOL.

Or TCU, but with SMU don't need TCU.

of them? In terms of college rivalries, I believe the SMU-TCU rivalry may be one of the more spirited and more competitive rivalries out there. I'm not just thinking in terms of football, but all sports. If we just want to focus on the "Battle for the Iron Skillet," then TCU currently leads the rivalry (53-43-7). ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 9/25/2024, 8:10:26 PM

Been saying that for WVU and Cincinnati. We could benefit, but Texas is huge. Need other parts of the State. Houston area is also important. TCU and SMU are in same metro. But your point is valid. That's what Fox directed in LA, and what we did in Bay Area. So it's a trade off. ** Edited by HOO86 at 9/25/2024, 8:19:41 PM

with Houston, North Texas, and Rice are considered to be a distant secondary rivalry compared to the rivalry with TCU. I would think that is more important than where the TX members are located within the state. Particularly if the ACC wants to appeal to the non-TX audience to watch an ACC conference game involving SMU than another conference's game. If the ACC truly wants members from different regions within the state, then TX may be one of the few states where having 4 members is justifiable. CA and maybe FL being the other states on that very short list. If the ACC played its cards right with 4 TX members, then it should walk away from the negotiation table with at least 2 more primary rivalies and at least 2-3 secondary rivalries.

Fox pushed the B1G to do that in LA. B1G wanted Stanford. But Fox wanted to corner LA. So TCU would help ACC do that in DFW.

is rather small if you exclude rivalries involving Texas or TAMU. Houston-Rice SMU-TCU Baylor-Texas Tech (but it may be more a secondary rivalry) Note: bonus points for calling this rivalry the "BUTT Bowl" whenever Baylor is the visiting team/neutral site because the abreviated names read BU-TT Texas State-UTSA (aka I-35 rivalry) TCU-Texas Tech (aka West Texas Championship – Battle for the Saddle Trophy) may be another rivalry that is more a secondary one than primary one.

The ACC doesn't have that. Is a DFW rivalry a winner, or is a SMU one with a Houston team better? Needs research.

involving either school or both schools in this case since the ACC has no shot to lure either school away from the SEC. If I had included those schools, then the list would have been expanded to include three various combinations from the UT-TAMU-TX Tech rivalries and maybe a few others (i.e. UT-Baylor). UT-TX Tech UT-TAMU TAMU-TX Tech

Rice is best academically. UH is good too.

necessarily disagree with the premise. What I am undecided about is whether Houston is more a pro town (aka a carbon copy of the Northeast US), a college town, or a balance between the them. The other issue the ACC may need to resolve is just how important academics should play in an athletic conference? I get that was the ACC's core value and it worked in the past because of how the media landscape was before and after the SCOTUS ruling in 1984. Does it still work today given that the landscape has drastically changed though? These questions may matter when it comes to determining Rice's "value." Historically Rice has never had a great football program. Any success the program experienced seemed to be short lived for various reasons. Rice may even be a school that cares more about its baseball program (example purposes only) than its football program. If the ACC is truly serious about drastically improving its street cred as a football conference, then it would probably be better served to include members who are committed to doing what is necessary (or at least showing it is making a serious effort) to greatly improve the football product within the conference. If the fans care about the football program, then it should intensify that school's primary football rivalry and maybe open the doors to establishing tense secondary rivalries. Now if the ACC truly doesn't care about its football product, then Rice is essentially a slam dunk as a future ACC member. At this junction, I don't really care if the ACC would prefer to be an academic conference that happens to play football or a conference that places more emphasis on athletics (especially football). The ACC may just need to pick a lane (or path) and stick with it regardless of the consequences (i.e. the football schools leave the conference and the ACC becomes a middle of the pack G8 football conference) instead of straddling between 2 worlds. The Big East tried to straddle 2 worlds (basketball vs. football) and it eventually tore the conference apart. It seems to me that the ACC may be on a very similar path or even the same path as the Big East and I don't think the ACC's ending will be any different than the Big East's ending.

schools, they would all say their biggest rivalry in their history is Texas, with the exception of Tech, who would say A&M. All of the other rivalries are secondary. The statue on campus of Will rogers is placed exactly so the horses ass is pointed to the A&M campus. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 9/25/2024, 9:55:34 PM

rivalries (i.e. SMU-TCU) as the foundation for trying to increase the passion of the ACC fan base. Heck even if the ACC opted to add New Mexico, New Mexico State, and UTEP because all 3 schools have a passionate rivalry with each other, then that should be a stronger foundation than adding 2-3 schools from different regions within TX and hoping it leads to a manufactured rivalry of any kind (i.e. the infamous BC-VT rivalry).

didn't stop them from joining the Big XII, so I am not sure why it would be a huge deal with the ACC.