Stealth No More: ACC Out of the Closet...

[cuseincincy]

NYC is a big event town and that's what the BET was and the ACCT will be. Most of the media execs, high rollers, celebs, etc. that could take a cab to MSG are not going to be flying to Greensboro for a basketball tournament. There's a certain excitement about seeing Bill Clinton, Spike Lee or any other number of people that show up for a game in The Garden.

And why is cuseincincy so angry?

LOL! I'm not angry. I just find it comical that so many think that NYC and MSG are a requirement if the ACCT is to be the best and biggest event. I've been to a couple BET's and had a fantastic time. I've also been to numerous NCAA tournament sites and had a fantastic time...and am pointing out that none of those were in NYC or MSG (Dayton, Lexington, Indianapolis, Boston, Atlanta). I get it, NYC and MSG are the mecca. The best and brightest of the northeast and possibly even the country. But the ACCT will be just fine if it never plays a single game in NYC or MSG. TV money is the only thing that really matters anyhow.

 

[DownTheField]

LOL! I'm not angry. I just find it comical that so many think that NYC and MSG are a requirement if the ACCT is to be the best and biggest event. I've been to a couple BET's and had a fantastic time. I've also been to numerous NCAA tournament sites and had a fantastic time...and am pointing out that none of those were in NYC or MSG (Dayton, Lexington, Indianapolis, Boston, Atlanta). I get it, NYC and MSG are the mecca. The best and brightest of the northeast and possibly even the country. But the ACCT will be just fine if it never plays a single game in NYC or MSG. TV money is the only thing that really matters anyhow.

I have no doubt that the ACCT will be just fine no matter where it's played, but to be the best that it can be (and there is a very high ceiling), it has to be played at MSG. Like you said though, it will be fine wherever it is played.

 

[Texas Otto]

I could care less I just can't wait for some hardnosed football to be played. I hate to wish summer away but I cannot wait for the season to begin!

 

[Resonator]

Posters are focusing on the minutae and missing the bigger picture.

It's about identity and branding. Pure and simple. Trying to get into the nitty gritty of why it should or shouldn't is pointless, imho.

I'll ask the same question both Coach K and JB have asked in the past.

What would the greatest basketball league in the history of college athletics do?

Cheers,
Neil

They would play their tournament in the world's most famous arena. Thats what.

 

[Btstimpy]

What caused FSU and Clemson to look elsewhere was the attempt by UNC and Duke to try and push UConn into the league. They DID NOT want another basketball-focused school. They wanted a school where football mattered. One that had been successful in recent times. Louisville had that over UConn in spades. Truthfully, UL was the best of both worlds.

This is interesting. I thought FSU and Clemson were looking elsewhere long before Maryland moved according to the rumor mill. I thought the rumblings started when the ACC didn't invite West Virginia when the ACC invited Syracuse and Pittsburgh. The other interesting thing is that I've followed Louisville for 35 years going back to Denny Crum's team winning the national championship in 1980. And during all this time, I have never once thought Louisville a football school. I remember their battles in the Metro Conference, which Florida State was in, dominating basketball in battles with Memphis State. I guess Johnny Unitis played there, so they have some football history. But Louisville is like Kentucky to me, and that spells basketball.

I think that the ACC should strive to be good at both sports and not try to be a football conference or a basketball conference. I worry about leaving Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider. I could easily see the Big Ten bringing in Connecticut and Kansas and declaring themselves "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled" and claiming Madison Square Garden. That is not without possibility. The ACC needs to be careful here. UConn football beat Louisville in football last year at Louisville.

Louisville is a fantastic addition. Don't get me wrong. I just worry about Connecticut particularly with the ACC in open competition with the Big Ten in the New York City market.

 

[Texas Otto]

This is interesting. I thought FSU and Clemson were looking elsewhere long before Maryland moved according to the rumor mill. I thought the rumblings started when the ACC didn't invite West Virginia when the ACC invited Syracuse and Pittsburgh. The other interesting thing is that I've followed Louisville for 35 years going back to Denny Crum's team winning the national championship in 1980. And during all this time, I have never once thought Louisville a football school. I remember their battles in the Metro Conference, which Florida State was in, dominating basketball in battles with Memphis State. I guess Johnny Unitis played there, so they have some football history. But Louisville is like Kentucky to me, and that spells basketball.

I think that the ACC should strive to be good at both sports and not try to be a football conference or a basketball conference. I worry about leaving Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider. I could easily see the Big Ten bringing in Connecticut and Kansas and declaring themselves "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled" and claiming Madison Square Garden. That is not without possibility. The ACC needs to be careful here. UConn football beat Louisville in football last year at Louisville.

Louisville is a fantastic addition. Don't get me wrong. I just worry about Connecticut particularly with the ACC in open competition with the Big Ten in the New York City market.

UConvict will never ever get a BIG invite :rolling:

 

[Btstimpy]

UConvict will never ever get a BIG invite :rolling:

I hope you're right. But I said the same thing about Louisville getting an ACC invite this time last year. You just never know. I can say with confidence that neither Cincinnati nor Temple will ever get a Big Ten invite. And Johns Hopkins? What the hell?

 

[omniorange]

They would play their tournament in the world's most famous arena. Thats what.

That's part of it. But ultimately, the ACC wants to brand itself as the East Coast Conference from Boston to Miami. Which mean important conference events should take place along the East Coast.

We've seen so far that the only successful place for the Conference Football Championship is Charlotte.

The major football Bowl games are in the state of Florida - Orange, Russell Athletic, and Cap One on occasion.

And both of those involving football should be down south and the two most important states in the south are covered by the above - North Carolina and Florida.

Something important should be above the Mason Dixon Line. Common sense says it should be the ACCT in MSG. Of course we know there are legal issues that might make this difficult, if not impossible. And if the conference has to settle for Barclays instead on a rotating basis with Greensboro that's fine for now.

But long range, for identity and branding purposes, the goal should be MSG every year, imho. Will the ACCT still be great if it doesn't happen? Sure. Since I will be retiring within the next couple of years and likely moving to the Myrtle Beach area, I have no dog in this hunt.

But if it remains mostly Greensboro then it basically will further the impression most outside the league have already - that it's a league run by and for Tobacco Road and this notion of being a conference spread from Boston to Miami is just words.

Now I happen to believe that UNC and Duke have gotten beyond that and are willing to explore all options.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Lou_C]

This is interesting. I thought FSU and Clemson were looking elsewhere long before Maryland moved according to the rumor mill. I thought the rumblings started when the ACC didn't invite West Virginia when the ACC invited Syracuse and Pittsburgh. The other interesting thing is that I've followed Louisville for 35 years going back to Denny Crum's team winning the national championship in 1980. And during all this time, I have never once thought Louisville a football school. I remember their battles in the Metro Conference, which Florida State was in, dominating basketball in battles with Memphis State. I guess Johnny Unitis played there, so they have some football history. But Louisville is like Kentucky to me, and that spells basketball.

I think that the ACC should strive to be good at both sports and not try to be a football conference or a basketball conference. I worry about leaving Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider. I could easily see the Big Ten bringing in Connecticut and Kansas and declaring themselves "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled" and claiming Madison Square Garden. That is not without possibility. The ACC needs to be careful here. UConn football beat Louisville in football last year at Louisville.

Louisville is a fantastic addition. Don't get me wrong. I just worry about Connecticut particularly with the ACC in open competition with the Big Ten in the New York City market.

Yeah, that Louisville over UConn thing was way down the line as far as that stuff goes. If you want to know why FSU and Clemson were looking (in as much as they were looking) the biggest impetus would probably be around this:

The Big 12 loses two more teams, is on the brink of destruction. They add a MWC team and a Big East team that nobody but nobody had wanted, to form the conference with by far the smallest footprint. And that conference promptly gets a TV deal guaranteeing it's teams >50% of what the ACC was getting. And then signs a deal for the lucrative Champions Bowl, while the ACC is left with a total question mark with the Orange Bowl.

The idea that the barely alive Big 12 would have that kind of contract, while the ACC had their contract, looked like a severe, significant lack of foresight and effectiveness by the leadership of the ACC, and seriously called into question the ACC's ability to keep from being permanently outdistanced.

There are a million other points of contention that had verious levels of effect, but that was the "we're taking calls" moment. I have serious doubts whether the Big 12 was ever an option for FSU, but I'm pretty sure had the SEC called, that FSU was gone. Have no real clue on Clemson.

Now, where the ACC stands today is a far cry different than it was 18 months ago. I do think Swofford is over-credited for the position the ACC is now in compared to the other conferences. The ACC still has some very serious concerns, financial and otherwise, and they cannot let up. It is guaranteed neither safe nor competititve long term.

However, what this conference did to go from where it was 18 month ago with a $13M contract, a dead bowl game, etc to where it is today? With absolutely nothing to bargain with, no leverage? For that, Swofford accomplished way more than I ever thought was possible.

My hope is, and it is bearing out, is that Swofford and the ACC leadership are now asserting themselves in the way they did over the last 18 months in everything they do going forward. No more "time to lay back, slap backs, be the Southern gentlemen who actually think playing second fiddle to the SEC is a mark of refinement and when is tip-0ff?".

If the ACC goes back to "business as usual" they've only prolonged the inevitable by another 10-15 years. If they act like the sharks they've shown they are, then the future can be bright.

 

[shantydaze]

They would play their tournament in the world's most famous arena. Thats what.

It would host its tournament wherever it wanted to. It is the product on the court that matters, not the building the game is played in.

The second largest media market in the country (L.A.) no longer hosts the Pac-12 Tourney and Chicago only gets the B1G Tourney every other year. The Big XII plays in K.C., which is not the largest media market within its footprint.

I think the ACC should join the the Pac-12, WAC, MWC, and West Coast conferences in Las Vegas. Why should we be penned in by geography?

 

[SUfaninAZ]

It would host its tournament wherever it wanted to. It is the product on the court that matters, not the building the game is played in.

The second largest media market in the country (L.A.) no longer hosts the Pac-12 Tourney and Chicago only gets the B1G Tourney every other year. The Big XII plays in K.C., which is not the largest media market within its footprint.

I think the ACC should join the the Pac-12, WAC, MWC, and West Coast conferences in Las Vegas. Why should we be penned in by geography?

Cuz fans of the pac12 only care about football. Vegas way better option than LA for pure entertainment.

 

[omniorange]

Lou_C, you are without a doubt one of the best ACC posters around. Hope to see you here more often when the games actually get going.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Lou_C]

Lou_C, you are without a doubt one of the best ACC posters around. Hope to see you here more often when the games actually get going.

Haha, I don't know about that, but thanks for the kind words.

I was fairly positive about the ACC in the beginning of FSU's entrance, but slowly lost my patience over the years with the conference. Then excited again with the 2005 expansion, then disappointed again. I've been pretty anti-ACC, and I was probably one of the torch-bearers for FSU looking at the Big 12 (not joining the Big 12, but exploring options) on some FSU boards and Twitter. In full disclosure, I did not support the SU/Pitt expansion at the time.

BUT...as I said previously, the last year or two, I've seen a business acumen and a talent for deal-making that the ACC just simply hadn't shown in recent decades.

I've seen the football schools assert themselves more in the league. Unlike many, I don't necessarilly place the full blame on Tobacco Road/Swofford for the shortsightedness toward football, I really think schools like FSU and Clemson have abdicated their responsibility to make themselves heard and understood in recent years. FSU's most recent AD was an absolute black hole that had no ability to make a compelling case for football or FSU interests.

Conference football scheduling has gotten MUCH more reasonable the past two seasons, previous to which it seemed pretty clear the scheduling goal was to handicap the stronger programs to create as much parity as possible.

The jury is out on whether are new wave of coaches is the answer to football woes, but I'm encouraged by the fact that most of them seem to really understand the recruiting game, and that it seems that recruiting chops will finally be considered when the conference makes hires.

So I'm put myself all in on the ACC again. But I'm still acutely aware of some fundamental things about the conference that require acute vigilance. I think the ACC leadership is aware of those things too, but if it looks like they aren't I'll be calling them on that in a second.

And just a side note...I'm not a football only guy, I absolutely love FSU basketball. I don't think this conference can thrive without much better football though.

I'm quite optimistic at the moment on the ACC at the moment now, and I actually think long term it may be in better shape than the Big 12 and even the Big 10.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Haha, I don't know about that, but thanks for the kind words.

I was fairly positive about the ACC in the beginning of FSU's entrance, but slowly lost my patience over the years with the conference. Then excited again with the 2005 expansion, then disappointed again. I've been pretty anti-ACC, and I was probably one of the torch-bearers for FSU looking at the Big 12 (not joining the Big 12, but exploring options) on some FSU boards and Twitter. In full disclosure, I did not support the SU/Pitt expansion at the time.

BUT...as I said previously, the last year or two, I've seen a business acumen and a talent for deal-making that the ACC just simply hadn't shown in recent decades.

I've seen the football schools assert themselves more in the league. Unlike many, I don't necessarilly place the full blame on Tobacco Road/Swofford for the shortsightedness toward football, I really think schools like FSU and Clemson have abdicated their responsibility to make themselves heard and understood in recent years. FSU's most recent AD was an absolute black hole that had no ability to make a compelling case for football or FSU interests.

Conference football scheduling has gotten MUCH more reasonable the past two seasons, previous to which it seemed pretty clear the scheduling goal was to handicap the stronger programs to create as much parity as possible.

The jury is out on whether are new wave of coaches is the answer to football woes, but I'm encouraged by the fact that most of them seem to really understand the recruiting game, and that it seems that recruiting chops will finally be considered when the conference makes hires.

So I'm put myself all in on the ACC again. But I'm still acutely aware of some fundamental things about the conference that require acute vigilance. I think the ACC leadership is aware of those things too, but if it looks like they aren't I'll be calling them on that in a second.

And just a side note...I'm not a football only guy, I absolutely love FSU basketball. I don't think this conference can thrive without much better football though.

I'm quite optimistic at the moment on the ACC at the moment now, and I actually think long term it may be in better shape than the Big 12 and even the Big 10.

the tiddlywinks league in Battery Park is in better shape than the bevo.

i agree, no reason to think that the ACC can be in better shape than the b1g long term.

until the Orange start playing (and winning) games in the ACC, i will feel like my nose is against the glass.

Game On!!

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, that Louisville over UConn thing was way down the line as far as that stuff goes. If you want to know why FSU and Clemson were looking (in as much as they were looking) the biggest impetus would probably be around this:

The Big 12 loses two more teams, is on the brink of destruction. They add a MWC team and a Big East team that nobody but nobody had wanted, to form the conference with by far the smallest footprint. And that conference promptly gets a TV deal guaranteeing it's teams >50% of what the ACC was getting. And then signs a deal for the lucrative Champions Bowl, while the ACC is left with a total question mark with the Orange Bowl.

The idea that the barely alive Big 12 would have that kind of contract, while the ACC had their contract, looked like a severe, significant lack of foresight and effectiveness by the leadership of the ACC, and seriously called into question the ACC's ability to keep from being permanently outdistanced.

There are a million other points of contention that had verious levels of effect, but that was the "we're taking calls" moment. I have serious doubts whether the Big 12 was ever an option for FSU, but I'm pretty sure had the SEC called, that FSU was gone. Have no real clue on Clemson.

Now, where the ACC stands today is a far cry different than it was 18 months ago. I do think Swofford is over-credited for the position the ACC is now in compared to the other conferences. The ACC still has some very serious concerns, financial and otherwise, and they cannot let up. It is guaranteed neither safe nor competititve long term.

However, what this conference did to go from where it was 18 month ago with a $13M contract, a dead bowl game, etc to where it is today? With absolutely nothing to bargain with, no leverage? For that, Swofford accomplished way more than I ever thought was possible.

My hope is, and it is bearing out, is that Swofford and the ACC leadership are now asserting themselves in the way they did over the last 18 months in everything they do going forward. No more "time to lay back, slap backs, be the Southern gentlemen who actually think playing second fiddle to the SEC is a mark of refinement and when is tip-0ff?".

If the ACC goes back to "business as usual" they've only prolonged the inevitable by another 10-15 years. If they act like the sharks they've shown they are, then the future can be bright.

Not for nothing, but a BIG reason why the Big XII got that kind of contract, and why the ACC did not initially, was that Texas and Oklahoma have been winning national titles while FSU and Miami were spinning their wheels.

Not trying to be combative, and I'm glad you're here posting, but facts are facts.

 

[TexanMark]

No no no! They will only pay attention if it is in NYC and MSG, get that through your skull! That is why the NCAA Tournament has been so under the radar and has gotten no exposure since 1961! :bang:

CounterPoint: ROSE BOWL

 

[Lou_C]

Not for nothing, but a BIG reason why the Big XII got that kind of contract, and why the ACC did not initially, was that Texas and Oklahoma have been winning national titles while FSU and Miami were spinning their wheels.

Not trying to be combative, and I'm glad you're here posting, but facts are facts.

I don't want to go down that road, but OU's most recent national title was no more recent to the Big 12's deal than FSU's was when the ACC signed their deal. OU won the title in 2000, and FSU in 1999. So Texas' 2005 win was the difference?

Believe me, nobody associated with FSU is anywhere near satisfied with the run they went through. But the bottom line is that the health of the conference can not just dependent on the excellence of one or maybe two teams, and everyone else just sits back and sucks and reaps the benefits. In football OR basketball. No other conference experiences that...EVERY other conference has had other title contenders step up when the "powers" are down, and nobody in the ACC has since FSU went in the tank.

For FSU, does "with more power come more responsibility"? Absolutely! Florida State is not doing their part if they are winning 6-8 games a year, while Syracuse might be. Just like in basketball, FSU should make the tournament 2 out of 3 years, but if Syracuse is doing only that, it's a major fail.

But by the same token, you can't say FSU or Miami have all the responsibility to win 11 games, and it's ok for UNC or UVA to win 4-5 games.

NO other conference has a model where "only two teams are expected to be good, only two teams can be good, and the entire football side of the conference fails if those two teams slump." It's an absurd premise, it doesn't work for any other conference, and there is no reason to think it would ever work. And you would think, if that WAS the model the ACC was pursuing, they would favor, not handicap, the success of those teams. But they hadn't done that either.

But they shouldn't, because that shouldn't be the model, and isn't how ANY other conference works. I don't care who you are, teams hit down periods. Including programs with a LOT more history, resources, money and support than FSU. Look at the slumps schools like USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Nebraska, etc have gone through. The entire Big 10 didn't have a national title for almost 30 years between 1968 and 1997. For the ACC to pin their relevance on FSU or anyone else winning multiple championships every decade is bad planning.

ESPN signed the SEC to a then-gargantuan record TV deal in 2008. Look at Alabama's record 2003-2007.

I understand your perspective, it's the easy answer, and it places all blame and responsibility with one or two parties, and absolves everyone else. The real question is how can the ACC be like every other conference, and still be a national factor no matter what happens to any individual team.

 

[Resonator]

This is interesting. I thought FSU and Clemson were looking elsewhere long before Maryland moved according to the rumor mill. I thought the rumblings started when the ACC didn't invite West Virginia when the ACC invited Syracuse and Pittsburgh.

You're right, FSU and CU initally were really angry over the choice of Pitt and Syracuse, because they haven't been winning anywhere near as consistently as WVU has over the past decade. But, the presidents preferred Pitt's and Syracuse's academic profiles to WVU's, which is not on the same level. Not even close. Plus, their fanbase does not have the greatest reputation, either. Nobody in the ACC wanted to deal with that possibility.

And, both have plenty of football cred, and, history. Both have won national titles in the past. And. I believe both are trending upward.

There was considerable blowback from those two over UConn, who has only been in the FBS for about a decade. Truthfully, had UConn been able to keep the momentum going after they won the Big East in 2010, they'd probably be in the ACC right now.

The other interesting thing is that I've followed Louisville for 35 years going back to Denny Crum's team winning the national championship in 1980. And during all this time, I have never once thought Louisville a football school. I remember their battles in the Metro Conference, which Florida State was in, dominating basketball in battles with Memphis State. I guess Johnny Unitis played there, so they have some football history. But Louisville is like Kentucky to me, and that spells basketball.

Its all about the here and now. And, football is driving the bus. Louisville has won two BCS bowls in the past seven seasons. And, gone 25-14 the past three, compared to 18-19 for UConn.

I think that the ACC should strive to be good at both sports and not try to be a football conference or a basketball conference. I worry about leaving Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider. I could easily see the Big Ten bringing in Connecticut and Kansas and declaring themselves "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled" and claiming Madison Square Garden. That is not without possibility. The ACC needs to be careful here. UConn football beat Louisville in football last year at Louisville.

I share your concern about UConn, but, they put themselves into this position with that stupid Blumenthal lawsuit. They made it personal. They named individuals, not just the ACC, in it. The PTBs in Greensboro will not forget that. Them beating UL in football last season is of no issue. Who won the Big East? Who played in the Sugar Bowl, and, beat Florida convincingly?

UConn has regressed since Edall left, and, they hired Pasqualoni. Beating UL H2H is a small consolation, since they failed to beat much of anybody else. Wouldn't you say?

Louisville is a fantastic addition. Don't get me wrong. I just worry about Connecticut particularly with the ACC in open competition with the Big Ten in the New York City market.

My position on UConn has softened a bit over time. They are in the same boat Kansas was almost in three years ago. A great basketball program is getting left behind because of football. Coach K and Roy Williams came to KU's defense at that time. Nobody has done that for UConn. I feel bad for them. But, unless ND ever joins fulltime, which isn't happening anytime soon, the ACC is going to stand pat at 14.

 

[baggerbob]

I don't want to go down that road, but OU's most recent national title was no more recent to the Big 12's deal than FSU's was when the ACC signed their deal. OU won the title in 2000, and FSU in 1999. So Texas' 2005 win was the difference?

Believe me, nobody associated with FSU is anywhere near satisfied with the run they went through. But the bottom line is that the health of the conference can not just dependent on the excellence of one or maybe two teams, and everyone else just sits back and sucks and reaps the benefits. In football OR basketball. No other conference experiences that...EVERY other conference has had other title contenders step up when the "powers" are down, and nobody in the ACC has since FSU went in the tank.

For FSU, does "with more power come more responsibility"? Absolutely! Florida State is not doing their part if they are winning 6-8 games a year, while Syracuse might be. Just like in basketball, FSU should make the tournament 2 out of 3 years, but if Syracuse is doing only that, it's a major fail.

But by the same token, you can't say FSU or Miami have all the responsibility to win 11 games, and it's ok for UNC or UVA to win 4-5 games.

NO other conference has a model where "only two teams are expected to be good, only two teams can be good, and the entire football side of the conference fails if those two teams slump." It's an absurd premise, it doesn't work for any other conference, and there is no reason to think it would ever work. And you would think, if that WAS the model the ACC was pursuing, they would favor, not handicap, the success of those teams. But they hadn't done that either.

But they shouldn't, because that shouldn't be the model, and isn't how ANY other conference works. I don't care who you are, teams hit down periods. Including programs with a LOT more history, resources, money and support than FSU. Look at the slumps schools like USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Nebraska, etc have gone through. The entire Big 10 didn't have a national title for almost 30 years between 1968 and 1997. For the ACC to pin their relevance on FSU or anyone else winning multiple championships every decade is bad planning.

ESPN signed the SEC to a then-gargantuan record TV deal in 2008. Look at Alabama's record 2003-2007.

I understand your perspective, it's the easy answer, and it places all blame and responsibility with one or two parties, and absolves everyone else. The real question is how can the ACC be like every other conference, and still be a national factor no matter what happens to any individual team.

Miami, Florida St, Notre Dame should be in the playoff hunt every year. Teams like Clemson, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Louisville, Georgia Tech should be in the top 20 half the time and occasionally in the top 7. Strength at the top and middle will make this the best football conference. Those 12 teams should almost always be among the top 40 in the nation year in , and year out.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I don't want to go down that road, but OU's most recent national title was no more recent to the Big 12's deal than FSU's was when the ACC signed their deal. OU won the title in 2000, and FSU in 1999. So Texas' 2005 win was the difference?

Believe me, nobody associated with FSU is anywhere near satisfied with the run they went through. But the bottom line is that the health of the conference can not just dependent on the excellence of one or maybe two teams, and everyone else just sits back and sucks and reaps the benefits. In football OR basketball. No other conference experiences that...EVERY other conference has had other title contenders step up when the "powers" are down, and nobody in the ACC has since FSU went in the tank.

For FSU, does "with more power come more responsibility"? Absolutely! Florida State is not doing their part if they are winning 6-8 games a year, while Syracuse might be. Just like in basketball, FSU should make the tournament 2 out of 3 years, but if Syracuse is doing only that, it's a major fail.

But by the same token, you can't say FSU or Miami have all the responsibility to win 11 games, and it's ok for UNC or UVA to win 4-5 games.

NO other conference has a model where "only two teams are expected to be good, only two teams can be good, and the entire football side of the conference fails if those two teams slump." It's an absurd premise, it doesn't work for any other conference, and there is no reason to think it would ever work. And you would think, if that WAS the model the ACC was pursuing, they would favor, not handicap, the success of those teams. But they hadn't done that either.

But they shouldn't, because that shouldn't be the model, and isn't how ANY other conference works. I don't care who you are, teams hit down periods. Including programs with a LOT more history, resources, money and support than FSU. Look at the slumps schools like USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Nebraska, etc have gone through. The entire Big 10 didn't have a national title for almost 30 years between 1968 and 1997. For the ACC to pin their relevance on FSU or anyone else winning multiple championships every decade is bad planning.

ESPN signed the SEC to a then-gargantuan record TV deal in 2008. Look at Alabama's record 2003-2007.

I understand your perspective, it's the easy answer, and it places all blame and responsibility with one or two parties, and absolves everyone else. The real question is how can the ACC be like every other conference, and still be a national factor no matter what happens to any individual team.

and here all this time i figured all the fsu guys were like peter warrick and laverneous coles stealing shoes and the girls like jenn sterger getting guys junk texted to then all day long.

who gave this seminole scarecrow a brain??

 

[Resonator]

That's part of it. But ultimately, the ACC wants to brand itself as the East Coast Conference from Boston to Miami. Which mean important conference events should take place along the East Coast.

I agree 100 percent.

We've seen so far that the only successful place for the Conference Football Championship is Charlotte.

The major football Bowl games are in the state of Florida - Orange, Russell Athletic, and Cap One on occasion.

And both of those involving football should be down south and the two most important states in the south are covered by the above - North Carolina and Florida.

Again, agree totally.

Something important should be above the Mason Dixon Line. Common sense says it should be the ACCT in MSG. Of course we know there are legal issues that might make this difficult, if not impossible. And if the conference has to settle for Barclays instead on a rotating basis with Greensboro that's fine for now.

But long range, for identity and branding purposes, the goal should be MSG every year, imho. Will the ACCT still be great if it doesn't happen? Sure. Since I will be retiring within the next couple of years and likely moving to the Myrtle Beach area, I have no dog in this hunt.

But if it remains mostly Greensboro then it basically will further the impression most outside the league have already - that it's a league run by and for Tobacco Road and this notion of being a conference spread from Boston to Miami is just words.

Now I happen to believe that UNC and Duke have gotten beyond that and are willing to explore all options.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

You hit the nail squarely upon the head with these two comments. MSG HAS to be the ACC's ultimate destination for the hoops' tournament. The media attention that buys the league is immeasureable. Plus, I bet the Southern portion of the league will come to embrace it, too.

About UNC and Duke being willing to explore all options, I will simply say this. UNC has been recruiting NYC hard since the days of Frank McGuire in the 1950's. We still do so today. And, Duke's nickname along Tobacco Road is the State University of New Jersey at Durham...LOL. Both have large alumni and fanbases there. Its a natural fit.

 

[Resonator]

Haha, I don't know about that, but thanks for the kind words.

I was fairly positive about the ACC in the beginning of FSU's entrance, but slowly lost my patience over the years with the conference. Then excited again with the 2005 expansion, then disappointed again. I've been pretty anti-ACC, and I was probably one of the torch-bearers for FSU looking at the Big 12 (not joining the Big 12, but exploring options) on some FSU boards and Twitter. In full disclosure, I did not support the SU/Pitt expansion at the time.

BUT...as I said previously, the last year or two, I've seen a business acumen and a talent for deal-making that the ACC just simply hadn't shown in recent decades.

I've seen the football schools assert themselves more in the league. Unlike many, I don't necessarilly place the full blame on Tobacco Road/Swofford for the shortsightedness toward football, I really think schools like FSU and Clemson have abdicated their responsibility to make themselves heard and understood in recent years. FSU's most recent AD was an absolute black hole that had no ability to make a compelling case for football or FSU interests.

Conference football scheduling has gotten MUCH more reasonable the past two seasons, previous to which it seemed pretty clear the scheduling goal was to handicap the stronger programs to create as much parity as possible.

The jury is out on whether are new wave of coaches is the answer to football woes, but I'm encouraged by the fact that most of them seem to really understand the recruiting game, and that it seems that recruiting chops will finally be considered when the conference makes hires.

So I'm put myself all in on the ACC again. But I'm still acutely aware of some fundamental things about the conference that require acute vigilance. I think the ACC leadership is aware of those things too, but if it looks like they aren't I'll be calling them on that in a second.

And just a side note...I'm not a football only guy, I absolutely love FSU basketball. I don't think this conference can thrive without much better football though.

I'm quite optimistic at the moment on the ACC at the moment now, and I actually think long term it may be in better shape than the Big 12 and even the Big 10.

Lou, you just expressed my opinion of the ACC football schools better than I ever could have. And, its nothing new.

Clemson practically BEGGED its ACC brothers to invest more in football after they won the MNC in 1981. That it would benefit the entire league long term to do so. And, their begging went unanswered. And, they ignored the obvious after Ga Tech won in 1990, and, after you all got your first in 1993.

I do not blame FSU, CU, Tech, and VPI for being mad as hell at the rest of the league. We let you all down in a HUGE way. Hopefully, the events of last summer will be the thing that finally gets some ACC ADs and presidents off of their ample arses, and, makes them realise that what you all have told them for 30 years is true.

The ACC can be great at football. Its time to show the rest of CFB that we can be, too.

 

[Resonator]

It would host its tournament wherever it wanted to. It is the product on the court that matters, not the building the game is played in.

The second largest media market in the country (L.A.) no longer hosts the Pac-12 Tourney and Chicago only gets the B1G Tourney every other year. The Big XII plays in K.C., which is not the largest media market within its footprint.

I think the ACC should join the the Pac-12, WAC, MWC, and West Coast conferences in Las Vegas. Why should we be penned in by geography?

IMHO, there is one major difference between the cities you mentioned, and, NYC.

NYC is a hoops first kind of town, while the rest are not.

 

[Lou_C]

Miami, Florida St, Notre Dame should be in the playoff hunt every year. Teams like Clemson, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Louisville, Georgia Tech should be in the top 20 half the time and occasionally in the top 7. Strength at the top and middle will make this the best football conference. Those 12 teams should almost always be among the top 40 in the nation year in , and year out.

More or less, yep, that would do it. Miami and Florida State, and I would about put Clemson there based on the way they can recruit, one or two of those three should be in the playoff hunt most years. And in years when they aren't, that's when someone out of that second pack has to be up in the top 10 challenging. Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Louisville and Virginia all probably have the tools to hit the top ten regularly.

It's not just winning national titles. Go back for decades and the number of ACC schools (when they are in the ACC) finishing in the top ten is disturbingly low. It's not just a bad cycle, it's not just FSU being down, it's not just the BCS era. I think people really don't realize that it's been systemic going back in the 1970s. Some good background there from Resonator. There is no historical "up" cycle for the ACC compared to other conferences. When I was spurring FSU-Big 12 talk, I actually went back to the AP to 1970. Taking out FSU's string of top 4 finishes, which can never be duplicated, the ACC had something ludicrous, like eleven top 10 finishes in forty years. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was disgusting, and put the lie to the idea it was just a down slump for a few years.

I don't say that to crap on the ACC football. I say that because if you are going to address the problem, you have to understand the problem to come up with any satisfactory approaches. It's not what FSU has done the last 10 years, it's not Miami probation, it's not Clemson doing nothing in the 1990s, it's not taking BC instead of WVU. It's not any one thing, it's some kind of systemic approach to football. I don't have all the answers, but I think a lot of it has to do with coaching, specifically having a lower threshold of expectations from it's coaches, both head coaches and staff. Something that FSU absolutely faced as well.

The bottom line is that this conference recruits better than anyone but the SEC, and has for some time. They send more kids to the NFL than anyone but the SEC. They sit in the sweetest hotbed of talent of any conference but the SEC. There's no reason this conference has to be any worse than second to the SEC.

You can make the case that the B1G, PAC and B12 all have obstacles to excellence on the field that are far more difficult to surmount than the obstacles facing the ACC. Quite literally, there is nothing stopping the ACC than just to do it.

 

[TheCusian]

More or less, yep, that would do it. Miami and Florida State, and I would about put Clemson there based on the way they can recruit, one or two of those three should be in the playoff hunt most years. And in years when they aren't, that's when someone out of that second pack has to be up in the top 10 challenging. Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Louisville and Virginia all probably have the tools to hit the top ten regularly.

It's not just winning national titles. Go back for decades and the number of ACC schools (when they are in the ACC) finishing in the top ten is disturbingly low. It's not just a bad cycle, it's not just FSU being down, it's not just the BCS era. I think people really don't realize that it's been systemic going back in the 1970s. Some good background there from Resonator. There is no historical "up" cycle for the ACC compared to other conferences. When I was spurring FSU-Big 12 talk, I actually went back to the AP to 1970. Taking out FSU's string of top 4 finishes, which can never be duplicated, the ACC had something ludicrous, like eleven top 10 finishes in forty years. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was disgusting, and put the lie to the idea it was just a down slump for a few years.

I don't say that to crap on the ACC football. I say that because if you are going to address the problem, you have to understand the problem to come up with any satisfactory approaches. It's not what FSU has done the last 10 years, it's not Miami probation, it's not Clemson doing nothing in the 1990s, it's not taking BC instead of WVU. It's not any one thing, it's some kind of systemic approach to football. I don't have all the answers, but I think a lot of it has to do with coaching, specifically having a lower threshold of expectations from it's coaches, both head coaches and staff. Something that FSU absolutely faced as well.

The bottom line is that this conference recruits better than anyone but the SEC, and has for some time. They send more kids to the NFL than anyone but the SEC. They sit in the sweetest hotbed of talent of any conference but the SEC. There's no reason this conference has to be any worse than second to the SEC.

You can make the case that the B1G, PAC and B12 all have obstacles to excellence on the field that are far more difficult to surmount than the obstacles facing the ACC. Quite literally, there is nothing stopping the ACC than just to do it.

I agree 1000% with everything you've said. It seems unthinkable - but in a way I've always shied away from watching the SEC because it seems so regional. It's hard to be a part of LSU vs Florida up here. It's good football - but this air of superiority from a regional southern conference has always bugged me. That's why I've watched Rutgers vs Pitt more than random SEC teams...

The ACC has an opportunity to bridge the gap. I'll be watching FSU vs Clemson - because with our addition, not only is there a direct effect on Syracuse - but I feel like its not a regional game but an eastern football game.

It's hard to articulate - but if the SEC has an archilles heal, it's that they are a smaller, more insular region. Large in population and tradition and reputation but exclusive and remote to the northeast and other regions.