Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Sherman20, post: 4762196, member: 6357"]
This SI article has a few interesting nuggets, including that the ACC was engaged in expansion conversations with the California schools, the Arizona schools and Utah in late July/early August. But that Yormark and the Big 12 had been pursuing and making their case to the Four Corner schools for a much longer time and likely presenting detailed analysis. That indicates to me that the ACC was behind the eight ball. If the ACC had been more aggressive and had been having in depth, substantive discussions with the other PAC-12 schools starting a year before, we might have been in a better position to land most of the remaining PAC-10 schools. Yes, geography was part of it, but also the previous time and energy that Yormark put into pursuing the Arizona schools and Utah.

Per the article:
By this point, on the same day the Pac-12 revealed its streaming-only media package to league presidents, the ACC had seriously engaged in expansion discussions with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Cal and Stanford. The move was triggered by Colorado’s departure from the Pac-12, which was made official July 27.

The ACC’s conversations with the five schools were serious. Phillips held discussions with the five presidents. However, while there was some momentum in the endeavor, the ACC found itself behind a rival Power Five conference: the Big 12, which had both geography and time on its side. Commissioner Brett Yormark had been pursuing the Arizona schools and Utah for months and had held intense discussions with Arizona specifically.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?