The ACC Invite: From Pitt's Perspective

[omniorange]

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.

Surprisingly I actually agree with your overall point about "secret agreements" or even "gentlemen's agreements" not making logical sense, but then nothing about what happened in the 2003, 2011, and 2012 ACC additions is logical unless one considers that the criteria of determining "best available option" changing at each of those additions. In 2003 we were far and away the best option after Miami. It wasn't even close when examining the athletics history of the previous 10 years. BC actually was the least of the four options discussed and honestly they should have been fifth behind WVU but at that point academics meant something to the ACC. Meanwhile VT, the logical third choice didn't even have votes to receive a campus visit per ACC conference guidelines with expansion candidates but had to be shoe-horned in later via political manipulation, the inability to sell an identity change, and good ole southern deviousness.

In 2011 we were actually first coveted (not counting Texas or ND, who weren't joining full anyway), but in terms of what was actually accomplished athletics wise the previous 10 years we should have been behind Pitt, UConn, and most definitely WVU and probably even Louisville if, as mentioned above, academics didn't matter, which amazingly a year later it didn't. And in 2012 had academics mattered like it supposedly did in the previous two rounds, than UConn should have been added, but surprisingly it was Louisville and it wasn't even close.

Anyway there certainly seems like something was fishy that we went from a clear #2 though not invited as one of the eventual three invites in 2003 (though BC's invite came so late that they had to wait to 2005 to get in) to probably the weakest of the available candidates in 2011 but first in line. Logic doesn't explain it based upon the facts known to the general public. Others, however, may know things you don't or having a keener mind being able to deduce things sometimes hidden from others.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Moontan]

My recollection was that Pitt & Yukon were a toss up with Yukon being a slight favorite. BCU then pushed for Pitt (more like an anti-Yukon sentiment) which was accepted by the rest of the schools.

It was a great Saturday when the ACC expansion was revealed. Much better than 2003 when SU was screwed over by politics and abstaining voters.

 

[SUbear]

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.'

I am not talking about any of those teams, Md was an ACC team since 1952 until they joined the BIG and it was the ACC team we played the most historically. Rutgers was nothing and frankly still is, PSU was not in the BIG it was an eastern Indie. We have played every Big in the original Big10 multiple times which includes Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, OSU, Mich, Iowa , Purdue. You apparently know little of SU history if you think the teams you mentioned are whom I was talking about.

 

[omniorange]

My recollection was that Pitt & Yukon were a toss up with Yukon being a slight favorite. BCU then pushed for Pitt (more like an anti-Yukon sentiment) which was accepted by the rest of the schools.

It was a great Saturday when the ACC expansion was revealed. Much better than 2003 when SU was screwed over by politics and abstaining voters.

That indeed was the UConn fans view on it and they are sticking to it. Except when they say it was ESPN who sunk UConn's chances. Some actually still claim both. The sad fact is that in the 4-4-4 committee UConn did have its advocates but that Pitt won the day overall. Now I have no doubt that those who wanted UConn over Pitt later made statements that indicated that BC didn't want them but the redheaded step child didn't control that vote. The football schools did, just like they controlled the Louisville vote over UConn a year later and how they controlled the let's take VT and Miami and try to get ND to join them fully as an all South Atlantic Conference except for the Irish back in 2003. Let's ignore the conference identity change all together since the Irish are on the ropes!

:rolling:

Anyway, as Woad Blue indicates above, there were statements made prior to the invites going out that didn't mention ND, but did seem to imply that the Irish were "in play" for at least a partial membership especially with Texas also flirting with the ACC at that time which made Syracuse and Pittsburgh the obvious choices.

Notre Dame was originally outraged at the acceptances of the invites by Pitt and SU and gave every indication that they would remain in the Big East, but not long afterward WVU left in a hurry and Louisville actually submitted its resignation to the Big East commissioner as well without even having a landing spot. Which shocked me when I learned about that well after the fact but the Irish had to have known about this as well. It was only a matter of time before ND was in talks with both the ACC and the Big 12 for partial membership.

Louisville's Bold Move

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

I am not talking about any of those teams, Md was an ACC team since 1952 until they joined the BIG and it was the ACC team we played the most historically. Rutgers was nothing and frankly still is, PSU was not in the BIG it was an eastern Indie. We have played every Big in the original Big10 multiple times which includes Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, OSU, Mich, Iowa , Purdue. You apparently know little of SU history if you think the teams you mentioned are whom I was talking about.

Forgive me for intruding on this discussion between you and another poster.

You are correct that we have played the original Big Ten schools more times than we have played the 9-team ACC as can be seen in the link below:

Winsipedia - Syracuse Orange football all-time record, wins, and statistics

But I think your mind may have inflated the number of times we have played those schools. When one actually looks at the number of times played, while greater than the total number played against the ACC 9, it really isn't a lot of times overall, at least not significant enough to make it a factor in SU deciding between the two conferences (if given such a choice).

Ultimately as I indicated in one of my posts - 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.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[TerryD]

The Big12, really. I would have liked to see that. The more you Golden Domers dig in your heels, the more it aligns the conferences and their voters against you.

I don't know what is so controversial about my post. ND was in talks with the Big 12 over partial membership when it joined the ACC.

Every move ND has made since 1991 (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal) has been done to keep football independent. It would not have joined the Big Ten as a full member in 2012.

 

[TerryD]

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

Legally, ND is a full ACC member. It has full voting rights and will get a full share of the ACC Network profits.

ND has the same status inside the ACC as North Carolina, Syracuse, and Clemson.

It has something like 24 athletic programs competing in the ACC. Only hockey and football are not playing in the ACC.

 

[CousCuse]

Legally, ND is a full ACC member. It has full voting rights and will get a full share of the ACC Network profits.

ND has the same status inside the ACC as North Carolina, Syracuse, and Clemson.

It has something like 24 athletic programs competing in the ACC. Only hockey and football are not playing in the ACC.

Notre Dame in an ACC championship game would be exciting and big ratings. If it was to get a playoff berth, even bigger.

 

[Hoo's That]

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

Both Delaney and Mike Slive of the SEC knew full well how the 3-5-5 schedule could set up a better match-up in their own championship games, but both still clung to the vague hope that voting against 3-5-5 would cause the ACC to implode and they'd pick and choose from the remnants. Was that a smart idea on their parts? Abso-freaking-lutely not! But they've sold their membership on this concept and will go down with that banner nailed to the mast. Slive has since retired. Maybe when Delaney leaves everyone will vote to allow 3-5-5.

If anything the B1G needs 3-5-5 more than we do to stop having thatOSU, Meeshigan, Ped State, and MSU maul each other every year just to see who will play Wisconsin in the championship game. While MSU would play Meeshigan every year, Ped State wouldn't. They'd play the Twerps, Rutgahs, and MSU (for the coveted Land Grant Trophy!) and have thatOSU and Meeshigan in the two rotation groups.

Neb., Iowa, Wisc., and Minn would have the others as their permanent 3.
The Illinois and Indiana teams would have the others as their permanent 3.
PSU - MSU, Twerps, Rutgahs
Twerps - PSU, Rutgahs, and one of thatOSU/Meeshigan
Rutgahs - PSU, Twerps, and one of thatOSU/Meeshigan
that OSU - Meeshigan, MSU, and one of Twerps/Rutgahs
MSU - PSU, Meeshigan, thatOSU (still getting the shaft because they lose one of the two pretty sure wins each year against the Twerps and Rutgahs).
Meeshigan - thatOSU, MSU, and one of Twerps/Rutgahs

 

[SUbear]

Forgive me for intruding on this discussion between you and another poster.

You are correct that we have played the original Big Ten schools more times than we have played the 9-team ACC as can be seen in the link below:

Winsipedia - Syracuse Orange football all-time record, wins, and statistics

But I think your mind may have inflated the number of times we have played those schools. When one actually looks at the number of times played, while greater than the total number played against the ACC 9, it really isn't a lot of times overall, at least not significant enough to make it a factor in SU deciding between the two conferences (if given such a choice).

Ultimately as I indicated in one of my posts - 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.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Neil

You are ignoring the original post I was commenting on. In this case context is everything.

 

[SU2NASA]

Legally, ND is a full ACC member. It has full voting rights and will get a full share of the ACC Network profits.

ND has the same status inside the ACC as North Carolina, Syracuse, and Clemson.

It has something like 24 athletic programs competing in the ACC. Only hockey and football are not playing in the ACC.

ND gets as much of a share of revenues resulting from football as SU does of your NBC contract. You are incorrect.

 

[SU2NASA]

Wow. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

I don't know what your source is, and I'm not going to give up mine, but from what I have on very, very good authority from near the top of the SU administration at the time would suggest you are entirely incorrect. There was no such thing as a promised spot in the ACC at any time.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

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

Just because you don't care about non revenue sports doesn't mean they aren't pertinent in this discussion. It has an effect on your university where you send all your athletes every year in every sport.

ND are idiots to be in this conference FWIW for their other sports as they would be having the run Villanova has in the New Big East. Them and Nova would be at the top with the 2nd teir of PC/X/Butler/Creighton. ACC didn't get them better recruits but the talent level would be good enough for that conference.


I think the football arrangement works out well enough for them but they'd be in the CCG more often than not as a full member of the ACC. I mean they signed that arrangement because they thought they'd win most of the games and its not the SEC.

I am not talking about any of those teams, Md was an ACC team since 1952 until they joined the BIG and it was the ACC team we played the most historically. Rutgers was nothing and frankly still is, PSU was not in the BIG it was an eastern Indie. We have played every Big in the original Big10 multiple times which includes Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, OSU, Mich, Iowa , Purdue. You apparently know little of SU history if you think the teams you mentioned are whom I was talking about.

Winsipedia - Syracuse Orange football all-time record, wins, and statistics

Well we have played MSU more than any of the schools you mentioned so there goes that...

I'd join the B1G in hockey if we add it. But in terms of our branding and identity in football and basketball it would be terrible we'd be another Pitt. Our fanbase lives in the ACC footprint CNYers don't relocate to the rustbelt they go to the Carolinas. No one that roots for Syracuse lives in Lincoln or Iowa City. Its a better fit than the old Big East we aren't Catholic. But as I just said think about what team the New Big East fits perfectly ND would do better in the modern Big East than us or Uconn would if either of us decided to go Indy in FB and rejoin those teams.

PS please never schedule Illinois again I loathed those series in the Cantor era.

 

[omniorange]

Both Delaney and Mike Slive of the SEC knew full well how the 3-5-5 schedule could set up a better match-up in their own championship games, but both still clung to the vague hope that voting against 3-5-5 would cause the ACC to implode and they'd pick and choose from the remnants. Was that a smart idea on their parts? Abso-freaking-lutely not! But they've sold their membership on this concept and will go down with that banner nailed to the mast. Slive has since retired. Maybe when Delaney leaves everyone will vote to allow 3-5-5.

If anything the B1G needs 3-5-5 more than we do to stop having thatOSU, Meeshigan, Ped State, and MSU maul each other every year just to see who will play Wisconsin in the championship game. While MSU would play Meeshigan every year, Ped State wouldn't. They'd play the Twerps, Rutgahs, and MSU (for the coveted Land Grant Trophy!) and have thatOSU and Meeshigan in the two rotation groups.

Neb., Iowa, Wisc., and Minn would have the others as their permanent 3.
The Illinois and Indiana teams would have the others as their permanent 3.
PSU - MSU, Twerps, Rutgahs
Twerps - PSU, Rutgahs, and one of thatOSU/Meeshigan
Rutgahs - PSU, Twerps, and one of thatOSU/Meeshigan
that OSU - Meeshigan, MSU, and one of Twerps/Rutgahs
MSU - PSU, Meeshigan, thatOSU (still getting the shaft because they lose one of the two pretty sure wins each year against the Twerps and Rutgahs).
Meeshigan - thatOSU, MSU, and one of Twerps/Rutgahs

Both Delaney and Mike Slive of the SEC knew full well how the 3-5-5 schedule could set up a better match-up in their own championship games, but both still clung to the vague hope that voting against 3-5-5 would cause the ACC to implode and they'd pick and choose from the remnants. Was that a smart idea on their parts? Abso-freaking-lutely not! But they've sold their membership on this concept and will go down with that banner nailed to the mast. Slive has since retired. Maybe when Delaney leaves everyone will vote to allow 3-5-5.

Well, unfortunately, Swofford (and the legislation that was submitted for approval) never clearly defined what the ACC's intents were. Unlike the Big 12 that simply wanted the requirement of there being 12 teams to have a football championship game removed. This was the point I was trying to make. Swofford was extremely vague about what the ACC's intentions were in terms of how they would implement the change in the conference which spooked Delany (and to a lesser extent Slive) especially since the ACC had a scheduling agreement with the Irish that have them playing 5 ACC teams each year. Reasonable people KNOW there was no way the ACC would ever allow the Irish to participate in the CCG as a partial, but whenever ND is involved, Delany gets antsy.

John Swofford: ACC not planning 3 divisions if deregulation passes

"Our purpose behind initiating that discussion was really not about anything specific we would necessarily do, but based on the whole deregulation of a number of NCAA issues in recent years," Swofford told ESPN.com. "We said over and over again that doesn't mean we would necessarily change anything within our own league.

"We just feel conferences should have the opportunity to do that both in terms of the number of teams in a league and whether you can have a championship as well as how you determine which teams play in that championship game. During these conversations, we haven't had any real discussion about a three-division ACC. That has never had any legs in our discussions, and so far, any change to what we're doing now has not had any real legs."

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Chip]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times (ok, maybe five). Syracuse, the University, fits in better with the ACC. Syracuse, the City, fits in better with the B1G.

 

[SU68]

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.

The University of Chicago (the Maroons coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg) were a founding member of the Big 10 but decided that football was not compatible with its academic mission and dropped out of the Big 10. Northwestern probably wished that UC was still a member.

 

[Hoo's That]

ND gets as much of a share of revenues resulting from football as SU does of your NBC contract. You are incorrect.

I don't think the ACC Network money includes anything for football. I think it's just for the other sports, which is why ND gets a full share, with football as a separate contract which doesn't inlcude ND.

 

[Hoo's That]

The University of Chicago (the Maroons coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg) were a founding member of the Big 10 but decided that football was not compatible with its academic mission and dropped out of the Big 10 and discontinued having a varsity football team from 1939 to1969. Northwestern probably wished that UC was still a member.

Added something for you.

 

[TerryD]

ND gets as much of a share of revenues resulting from football as SU does of your NBC contract. You are incorrect.

I am not incorrect in my statement that ND is a full member of the ACC.

It does not participate in football. Syracuse does not participate in baseball.

ND will get a full share of the ACC Network profits.

It has full voting rights in the ACC, the only difference is it keeps the NBC money, does not share in ACC football money (outside of the ACC Network profits) and gets around $6 million a year for basketball and other sports.

Legally, there is not one bit of difference in membership status between North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse and Notre Dame. All are full members.

 

[TerryD]

I don't think the ACC Network money includes anything for football. I think it's just for the other sports, which is why ND gets a full share, with football as a separate contract which doesn't inlcude ND.

The ACC Network profits will include some football games.

The ACC is banking on ND drawing subscribers and gave it the same share of network profits as every other ACC school.

 

[Hoo's That]

The University of Chicago (the Maroons coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg) were a founding member of the Big 10 but decided that football was not compatible with its academic mission and dropped out of the Big 10. Northwestern probably wished that UC was still a member.

I just looked at the UChicago football wiki. NWern may be glad they aren't still in the B1G. The Maroons are 26-8-3 (.763) vs. NWern.

 

[SU2NASA]

I am not incorrect in my statement that ND is a full member of the ACC.

It does not participate in football. Syracuse does not participate in baseball.

ND will get a full share of the ACC Network profits.

It has full voting rights in the ACC, the only difference is it keeps the NBC money, does not share in ACC football money (outside of the ACC Network profits) and gets around $6 million a year for basketball and other sports.

Legally, there is not one bit of difference in membership status between North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse and Notre Dame. All are full members.

You seem to be confusing what your definition of 'full member' is for share of revenue. Notre Dame does not get a share of football television revenue. I can 5,000% guarantee you that.

This is all publicly available knowledge. I don't know what is so difficult for you to grasp.

ACC experiences record revenue growth but gap remains wide as rich grow richer

In the ACC, each of the 14 schools that received a full share of conference revenue – every one except Notre Dame, which is a part-time member that remains independent in football – received an average of $26.2 million in conference revenue, according to a tax filing the ACC recently released. Notre Dame received $6.2 million.

 

[TerryD]

You seem to be confusing what your definition of 'full member' is for share of revenue. Notre Dame does not get a share of football television revenue. I can 5,000% guarantee you that.

This is all publicly available knowledge. I don't know what is so difficult for you to grasp.

ACC experiences record revenue growth but gap remains wide as rich grow richer

In the ACC, each of the 14 schools that received a full share of conference revenue – every one except Notre Dame, which is a part-time member that remains independent in football – received an average of $26.2 million in conference revenue, according to a tax filing the ACC recently released. Notre Dame received $6.2 million.

We are likely talking past one another. I never once said ND gets football money from the ACC. It does not.

ND is a full member of the ACC, whether it participates in football or not, or gets any football money, or not.

 

[CousCuse]

We are likely talking past one another. I never once said ND gets football money from the ACC. It does not.

ND is a full member of the ACC, whether it participates in football or not, or gets any football money, or not.

Notre Dame vs Clemson in an ACC championship game, I could see the megahype now. Completely full stadium, viewer ratings off the charts. But no, Notre Dame wants their "uniqueness" or "exceptionalism", it's really kind of sad that hubris precludes this possibility.

 

[SU2NASA]

We are likely talking past one another. I never once said ND gets football money from the ACC. It does not.

ND is a full member of the ACC, whether it participates in football or not, or gets any football money, or not.

Look back at my posts. You’re now talking about something I never even brought up.

I really don’t care what you want to call yourselves.