The ACC Invite: From Pitt's Perspective

[orange79]

And I did so insulting Rutgers and Maryland.

Goes without saying.

 

[SUbear]

Where did I say that? Of course we would have accepted. We were in search of any lifeline from the sinking ship that was the BE. I said, "Syracuse is not a fit in the B1G. We are right where we belong. " Even if we were in the B1G, I would contend that we were not a fit there.

We are right where we belong.

I am happy to be in the ACC, but am not sure why you would say that. Historically we played BIG teams much more often than we played old ACC teams, although we played both. Size wise we really are not a match in either.

 

[orange79]

I am happy to be in the ACC, but am not sure why you would say that. Historically we played BIG teams much more often than we played old ACC teams, although we played both. Size wise we really are not a match in either.

Because a conference (as I said earlier) is more than just sports teams. We are like so many more schools in the ACC than we are like schools in the B1G (Northwestern).

Size-wise, we match up well in the ACC. We have more than twice as many students as Wake. Same as Miami. A little fewer than Clemson, etc. We're not a land-grant school, like all but one of the B1G.

We are right where we belong.

 

[SUbear]

Because a conference (as I said earlier) is more than just sports teams. We are like so many more schools in the ACC than we are like schools in the B1G (Northwestern).

Size-wise, we match up well in the ACC. We have more than twice as many students as Wake. Same as Miami. A little fewer than Clemson, etc. We're not a land-grant school, like all but one of the B1G.

We are right where we belong.

You really think having three schools comparable rather than one makes a big difference, most of the ACC are also state schools and hugely disparate from SU, okay then. You are right conferences are more and historically our connections to the big were more prevalent than connections to ACC schools. As I said I am happy where we have landed.

 

[SUbear]

Because a conference (as I said earlier) is more than just sports teams. We are like so many more schools in the ACC than we are like schools in the B1G (Northwestern).

Size-wise, we match up well in the ACC. We have more than twice as many students as Wake. Same as Miami. A little fewer than Clemson, etc. We're not a land-grant school, like all but one of the B1G.

We are right where we belong.

Clemson is much bigger than SU, though not as large as the state Us.

 

[SURules]

Clemson is much bigger than SU, though not as large as the state Us.

Actually Clemson and Syracuse are very similar in size of total student population.

 

[orange79]

Actually Clemson and Syracuse are very similar in size of total student population.

Yep - Clemson only about 1000 more than SU.

 

[CuseOnly]

You really think having three schools comparable rather than one makes a big difference, most of the ACC are also state schools and hugely disparate from SU, okay then. You are right conferences are more and historically our connections to the big were more prevalent than connections to ACC schools. As I said I am happy where we have landed.

Six schools in the ACC are private to one on the Big 10.

Syracuse
Boston College
Notre Dame
Duke
Miami
Wake Forest

The Big 10 has just Northwestern. That makes a huge difference and the State schools in the ACC are nowhere near the size of the schools in the Big10.

 

[Toga]

Delaney did target SU, and Pitt and Mizzou as a means of going to 14 or 16. The failure was in the Big schools not getting the large majority to invite any of these three, not even Kansas. It think the required vote for expansion was 75-90%, only UNL carried that much weight. No other schools were in as serious contention at the time. ND and UT were pipe dreams at that time. All other schools had less to offer than Mizzou, SU and Pitt for various reasons.

Maryland was not a serious candidate until the ACC made their move. NOTE: Maryland is realizing the deal is not as good as they thought.

Mizzou was publicly begging for a B1G invite. It was embarrassing.

 

[blizz]

I know I'm the odd man out here but Cuse belongs in the SEC. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[SUbear]

Six schools in the ACC are private to one on the Big 10.

Syracuse
Boston College
Notre Dame
Duke
Miami
Wake Forest

The Big 10 has just Northwestern. That makes a huge difference and the State schools in the ACC are nowhere near the size of the schools in the Big10.

Notre Dame is not in the ACC, but I was responding to the ones he mentioned not the league in general. You can not seem to accept that I said I am happy we are in the ACC. My point was and still is that we had more interaction with BIG schools than with ACC historically and culturally, therefore we could if that is what transpired have fit in the BIG and it was not as he infered not a legitimate possibility.

 

[orange79]

I know I'm the odd man out here but Cuse belongs in the SEC. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Hoo's That]

{snip}

Specifically, Longhorns football people, all of them, know that an annual Texas-ND game would replace ND-SC as the nation's biggest intersectional game, and that only that game would hurt the SEC and make it pay for having taken A&M and messed up a Texas run conference a second time.

I regret I can't give your post more than 1 "Like" or make the 1 "Like" I am allowed more emphatic.

When I asked people on the hard-core ND board about what they'd do if Texas got the same deal they did with the ACC without hesitation they all said ND would add Texas as an annual game on their football schedule to support the move. It's been a prime recruiting area for them for many years.

 

[CuseOnly]

Notre Dame is not in the ACC, but I was responding to the ones he mentioned not the league in general. You can not seem to accept that I said I am happy we are in the ACC. My point was and still is that we had more interaction with BIG schools than with ACC historically and culturally, therefore we could if that is what transpired have fit in the BIG and it was not as he infered not a legitimate possibility.

They are in the ACC, they're just not full members. Every sport but football and hockey.

This certainly looks like a ND logo on the ACC website. Maybe it's just a mistake and they have been missing it for 5 years or so. I should give them a call and let them know.

 

[SUbear]

They are in the ACC, they're just not full members. Every sport but football and hockey.

This certainly looks like a ND logo on the ACC website. Maybe it's just a mistake and they have been missing it for 5 years or so. I should give them a call and let them know.
View attachment 139911

Not full members, not in the ACC. Just like they were not in the Big East. Associate members are bull.

 

[omniorange]

I am confident that the vast majority of Syracuse fans believe the ACC is the right fit for our Orange. As already pointed out the ACC has five other private institutions in the conference. Next the ACC has smaller public institutions than the Big Ten and to a lesser degree the SEC.

Undergraduate size seems to be a part of the equation as to who is coveted by the bigger conferences, although brand and academics can trump in the end. But in terms of size for example, Clemson (with 19,402 undergraduates) is the fourth largest enrollment in the ACC. It would rank 12th in the SEC ahead of just Ole Miss, Miss. State, and Vandy. The Tigers would rank 14th in the Big Ten, ahead of only Northwestern. FSU is the only ACC member to have over 30K undergraduate enrollment. The Big Ten has 8, including 2 of those 8 over 40K. The SEC has 3 institutions with over 30K undergraduate enrollment.

Within the ACC Syracuse ranks 10th in terms of undergraduate enrollment, although we are within 500 or so of Georgia Tech (which I believe some either confused with Clemson in this thread or were adding in graduate students which would still give Clemson just under 2K more than SU).

Until Maryland bolted for the Big Ten, they ranked 2nd behind FSU in terms of undergraduate enrollment. While Rutgers was always first in the Big East. The now 2nd and 3rd ranked ACC teams in this regard are VT and NC State. These two have always been high on the SEC's "wish list" obviously for their locations but also because of their "fit" for that league in terms of size.

So yes, Syracuse in terms of being a private institution, in terms of academics, in terms of geography, and in terms of size belongs in the ACC.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Schools not in the same division, not annual cross-divisional rivals, would get to play each other more often if the NCAA had allowed leagues to play without divisions. But the Big Ten led the fight to prevent that.

Of course, the Big Ten would benefit from no divisions football as much as the ACC.

Unfortunately, Swofford was never able to articulate why the ACC requested change in the championship rule could benefit ALL so Delany took the proposal as a possible end-around of ensuring not just that the two best conference teams for that year were in the championship game (and thus in a better situation to secure a spot in the Football Final Four for the conference) but also potentially to get Notre Dame in contention for the ACC championship game - something the ACC schools would never have entertained at all. In an odd way, this year could prove why the change should have been approved since if the Big Ten West representative gets a fluke win over the East representative, they will likely miss out having a team in the CFP.

Had the change gone through, the ACC could have developed a nice no divisions 3-5-5 scheduling model that would ensure match-ups like SU-Miami happen more often than SU-ND.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Gene Corrigan has stated publicly more than once that when the SEC going to 12 forced the ACC to expand, the 2 schools immediately named were FSU and Syracuse. If we had expanded to 10 rather than 9 back then, we would have added Syracuse.

Just want to remind you that back in the day, you first advocated for the ACC to take WVU and Rutgers and then later modified that to WVU and Pittsburgh (mainly because of that storied rivalry). You never wanted Syracuse, using the old private versus public argument and the belief that Syracuse would never right the ship so to speak. I understood where you were coming from but kept pointing out that Syracuse and Pitt would be the choices simply because Syracuse was "next up" and Pitt was greater historically and in terms of academics than either WVU or Rutgers.

Glad to see you have come around, at least in terms of why Rutgers would have been a disastrous choice. I still hope someday the ACC gives up on the fool's gold of ND and/or Texas (outside of partial membership) and gets WVU to join the party.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[WoadBlue]

Actually Clemson and Syracuse are very similar in size of total student population.

yes. ACC state schools, except FSU, tend to be smaller than most people assume. Clemson has maybe 2000 more students than Syracuse.

 

[WoadBlue]

Just want to remind you that back in the day, you first advocated for the ACC to take WVU and Rutgers and then later modified that to WVU and Pittsburgh (mainly because of that storied rivalry). You never wanted Syracuse, using the old private versus public argument and the belief that Syracuse would never right the ship so to speak. I understood where you were coming from but kept pointing out that Syracuse and Pitt would be the choices simply because Syracuse was "next up" and Pitt was greater historically and in terms of academics than either WVU or Rutgers.

Glad to see you have come around, at least in terms of why Rutgers would have been a disastrous choice. I still hope someday the ACC gives up on the fool's gold of ND and/or Texas (outside of partial membership) gets WVU to join the party.

Cheers,
Neil

When I was under the impression that Notre Dame refused to be in the mix, I knew the last thing the ACC needed was another private school having major football issues. And I knew that the ACC eventually would expand to 14. So the matter was to figure which pair would serve best, with football being the sport that required more pop. So the criteria were recent football successes, average attendance, direct access to fertile recruiting grounds, etc.

I no longer remember exactly what was said, just that Swofford made some statement and then somebody else in the ACC office said something. I knew, though ND was not mentioned, that the combined statements meant that ND was in play. Then I began saying that the ACC should add Pitt and Syracuse. A couple of the Big Ten posters kept wanting to know why I had changed my mind, and I told them ND was going to be part of the ACC, and Pitt and Syracuse would be best with ND.

That was also when WVU fans in large numbers became furious with me.

I don't think WVU ever gets the invite. I do think ND will decide to go full football member eventually, and ND will not want WVU as the 16th member.

 

[omniorange]

When I was under the impression that Notre Dame refused to be in the mix, I knew the last thing the ACC needed was another private school having major football issues. And I knew that the ACC eventually would expand to 14. So the matter was to figure which pair would serve best, with football being the sport that required more pop. So the criteria were recent football successes, average attendance, direct access to fertile recruiting grounds, etc.

I no longer remember exactly what was said, just that Swofford made some statement and then somebody else in the ACC office said something. I knew, though ND was not mentioned, that the combined statements meant that ND was in play. Then I began saying that the ACC should add Pitt and Syracuse. A couple of the Big Ten posters kept wanting to know why I had changed my mind, and I told them ND was going to be part of the ACC, and Pitt and Syracuse would be best with ND.

That was also when WVU fans in large numbers became furious with me.

I don't think WVU ever gets the invite. I do think ND will decide to go full football member eventually, and ND will not want WVU as the 16th member.

Well, at least you were eventually smart enough to figure out that if ND was going to be "in play" the expansion should be (begrudgingly) Syracuse (to kill off the Big East) and Pittsburgh (a long time rival of ND). But regardless of ND being "in play" or not, the picks were going to be SU and Pitt.

As for WVU never being in the ACC, that is of course possible. But I think they will have more support in the new ACC than the old one ever gave them. Brand and rivalries are back in the forefront over cable subscribers and the Eers would have great appeal to Pitt, SU, UL, VT, and Miami while FSU and Clemson (which tipped the scales in Louisville's favor over UConn) would likely want another football first school.

I still maintain that ND or Texas as full members is fool's gold, so to "freeze" further expansion on that basis would be a bad move on the part of the ACC Commissioner's office. Still, since the Big12 GOR is in effect to something like 2025-26 year, a lot can happen between now and then.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Notre Dame is not in the ACC, but I was responding to the ones he mentioned not the league in general. You can not seem to accept that I said I am happy we are in the ACC. My point was and still is that we had more interaction with BIG schools than with ACC historically and culturally, therefore we could if that is what transpired have fit in the BIG and it was not as he infered not a legitimate possibility.

I don't think its true. MD Rutgers and PSU are the Big Ten schools we have historically played a ton and they sort of don't count and are outcasts in that league.

The only rivals we don't play anymore are WVU, Miami, and VT. But 2/3 are in the ACC. None are in whats left of the Big East unless you want to consider what we just witnessed Saturday a 'rivalry game.'

 

[nzm136]

Various thoughts about what has been said upstream.
Pitt never goes to the B1G. Penn State would have vetoed it.
If not the ACC, Pitt would have gone to the BIG 12: a match with WVU.
We would have gone to the B1G if offered, the money is too good, but we are so much better off in the ACC.
UConn lost the game of musical chairs. I'm okay with that.

Bingo!

 

[nzm136]

Gene Corrigan has stated publicly more than once that when the SEC going to 12 forced the ACC to expand, the 2 schools immediately named were FSU and Syracuse. If we had expanded to 10 rather than 9 back then, we would have added Syracuse.

And the 1972 Dolphins went undefeated w/ at least one SU player on the team, and at least one ACC player.

See? I can say irrelevant facts about SU/the ACC, too. But nothing either of us wrote implies a secret agreement to take SU.

Syracuse was chosen because we were the best available choice, not because of some laughably (and obviously) fictitious secret agrreement. It doesn’t make logical sense to say “well, a prior administration made a secret agreement with another prior administration over 20 years ago for no reason, so we’re going to honor it and turn down a better option.”

SU would have been #10 because we were the best available option. We were clicking. VT hadn’t come into their own. And Miami has an image issue.

Then we were almost included in the first BE raid because we were one of the best available option, not because there was an agreement that was almost enforced.

Then we were included in the final raid (not counting the UL add) because we were far and away the best option.

 

[omniorange]

Various thoughts about what has been said upstream.
Pitt never goes to the B1G. Penn State would have vetoed it.
If not the ACC, Pitt would have gone to the BIG 12: a match with WVU.
We would have gone to the B1G if offered, the money is too good, but we are so much better off in the ACC.
UConn lost the game of musical chairs. I'm okay with that.

From the taped audio conversation with Gordon Gee back in May 2013:

"We've for some time talked about the need for us to expand the footprint of the Big 10 without getting too far outside of our geography. Texas, Georgia Tech, those are the kind of places we have talked about, but they are geographically a little challenging. We also have talked for some time about Maryland and Rutgers, but we wanted to pair those two together."

“[The addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten] gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers, makes the BTN worth more money than God. I did say that. It’s a very powerful instrument for us.”

“This is a high possibility. If the ACC continues to struggle, and Florida State goes off to the SEC or something like that, and Clemson moves in a different direction, all of a sudden Virginia and Duke, which are very similar institutions to — and North Carolina — which are very similar institutions to the Big Ten, there is a real possibility that we may end up having that kind of T which goes south. And I could see them joining us. And I could see them having a real interest in joining us.”

“I think that when we added Nebraska, it caused a whole domino effect that I don't think that we quite predicted. I think if we had predicted that, we would have added Missouri and Kansas at the same time, right Gene?"
Gene (OSU's AD) - "That was on the table."
Gee - "And Pitt was on the table. You know Penn State just abhors Pitt. It would be the same way. Even though we love Cincinnati as a city, we want it to be an Ohio State city. They’d have to take Gene out and shoot him to let Cincinnati into the Big Ten. There are some things that we just would not to. And that’s the way that Penn State also feels about Pitt. One of the problems we have is that Iowa has tremendous pressure about Iowa State. But we're not interested about Iowa State. We are interested in Missouri and Kansas eventually I think... This all has to be speculation that remains right here, and I could see eventually that it goes South, all according to what happens with the ACC, so we need to be ready to move.”

So basically we know from this that Pitt was discussed at around the same time Nebraska was added and PSU was definitely not interested in them being in the Big Ten. However, it is also interesting to note that there is mention of Iowa being pressured to add Iowa State even though the Big Ten has no interest in them. And lastly this discussion of Pitt was prior to the PSU scandal coming out (the ACC had already invited the Panthers to the ACC about a month and a half prior to it) and how very, very fortunate the Big Ten was that Penn State wasn't given the death penalty - but I digress.

We also know that Texas and GT were discussed but somehow "geographically challenging"; that there is still some interest in Missouri and Kansas "down the road" due to geography; and that Maryland and Rutgers were chosen as a pair for two distinct reasons - their cable subscribers and that it implemented a "T" strategy cutting off the ACC from Syracuse, BC, and Pitt while making it more appealing for the likes of UVA, UNC, and Duke to consider Big Ten membership in the future. So most of this would seem to indicate discussions that took place Fall 2011 and beyond, although Texas, Maryland, and Rutgers were certainly discussed in 2010 as well.

Yet if the reasons for Maryland and Rutgers were such a "slam dunk", then why did Ron Guenther say this about the additions (Ron Guenther was "deeply engaged" in that decision):

“We ran out of options,” he said. “That was not what we started to do. Jim had challenged me to come up with ways to increase the conference value, and I worked with the Pac-12 to put a collaboration together whereby we would play a 12-game series with them in football, staggered over the first three weeks of the season. We’d then be able to capture all three time zones, thus increasing our TV dollars. Unfortunately, right at the end, the Pac-12 pulled the plug because some institutions had contracts they couldn’t break.

“The challenge then was how do we increase our revenue? I looked at the population base going east. Once we take the Big Ten brand into New York, with that population and the good high school programs ... give this 10 years and we’ll see.

“This is so different from what we thought we were looking at. But I like our strategy. There were some other ACC schools that showed interest, but that didn’t work out.”

The Pac-12 contracts that they didn't want to break to bring about this scheduling agreement with them in the first three weeks of football season were USC's and Stanford's Notre Dame contracts. The Irish foil the Big Ten again - haha.

The ACC schools that supposedly showed interest had to be lukewarm at best considering Gee talks about the "T" strategy the Big Ten was attempting to implement with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers to basically give these institutions no choice if asked in the future.

For me, the most interesting takeaway from the Gee and Guenther articles is that the former is already in hype mode about Maryland and Rutgers making the Big Ten more $$$ than God and how it basically blocked the ACC's previous strategy of adding Syracuse, Boston College, and Pittsburgh by cutting them off from the rest of the league which would then make Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke more susceptible in future B1G expansion while the latter has Guenther saying that league ran out of other options (meaning the likes of UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT weren't biting; the Pac-12 scheduling agreement failing; etc.) and that the Maryland/Rutgers strategy would take time (at least 10 years) to develop getting the Big Ten brand in New York and presumably Baltimore and DC as well.

As with most things, time will tell. But this 2018-19 year will mark the halfway point so I think we will have a better idea by the end of it where it is heading. At this point, I don't think either league has a clear definitive edge for the fight for the northeast.

Cheers,
Neil