ACC Expansion
by orientalnc on Sep 18, 2011 10:15 AM EDT
in Georgia Tech Athletics
Email
PrintThe ACC made it official this morning that Pitt and Syracuse will be joining the ACC. You can read the story here. This is the beginnings of what I predicted two weeks ago. It looks like the ACC will be mining the Big East for two more members in the coming weeks.
The Kansas newspapers are saying the Jayhawks and Texas are being considered for the ACC, but I doubt this will happen unless Texas drops its demand for keeping the Longhorn Network. While Kansas would be a good fit with basketball, the football program would be a drain on the ACC and not add anything. As much as the ACC values basketball, football is the driver here. Evidence is clear in the move by Syracuse, who is already in a wonderful basketball league, but wants more football stability. The KC Star mentioned the ACC was looking at four team pods, but nowhere did they mention who would pod with Kansas and Texas.
The pod idea works great with two more Big East teams. If, as rumored (and predicted here on FTRS), UConn and Rutgers are the next two ACC teams, the pods for the ACC are easy to build. Put Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and BC in one pod; Rutgers, UVa, VPI and Maryland in another; Wake, Duke, UNC, and NC State in a third (this will make the ACC blue bloods happy); and Tech, Clemson, FSU and Miami in a fourth. The conference schedule would be the three teams in your pod, plus four teams in another pod, which would be rotated year to year. That would give each team seven conference games.
The pods don't work with Texas and Kansas. I am not sure who are closest to Lawrence and Austin, but it would a travel nightmare.
But this is about money and survival. Texas and Kansas don't add that much if Texas keeps the LHN and shares in other ACC revenues. They would always be above the rest of the members. Plus, I cannot see them agreeing to a $20 million buyout. Kansas is just dreaming about what could be if all were fair in this world. UConn and Rutgers bring the NYC market, which will be very interested in the ACC when there are five schools nearby playing at the highest level. Plus, these schools are right for the ACC on many other levels as well.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"ACC to vote on expansion Sunday as total apocalypse looms"
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Sep 18, 2011 11:42 AM EDT reply actions
Random comments
I like the “pod” idea, although you also have to find some way to equitably balance home-and-homes since you (as suggested) won’t be playing the same non-pod teams two years in a row.
If we stop at 14 I say we drop one rotating opponent to add the new divisional opponent. Any ideas about which divisions would have Pitt and ‘Cuse? I’d rather have Pitt but I am sure VT and Miami would rather have Syracuse.
The downside of a “pod” idea (unless you go the “Atlantic/Coastal” route and ignore geography) is that many traditional rivalries (Tech-Duke and UNC-UVA—two very old rivalries in your example) would have to end. Maybe we could have a pod with Clemson and Duke, and one other team.
I like the idea of adding UConn and Rutgers; what about USF and UCF? Of course, that means playing Coach O’Leary. Would the Florida schools (FSU, Miami) like that? Hate that? Would the NC schools feel that Florida is threatening their traditional ACC hegemony? Would that provide us some Florida insurance (particularly for Miami) if FSU bolts for the SEC?
I don’t think that WVU would be a good fit…but would USF and UCF have the same issues?
Will Tobacco Road see this
as a move against their Basketball hegemony, whether it is Florida schools, or Pitt/Cuse/WVU etc.?
The old boys in the Old North State weren’t too happy about the VT and Miami thing back in the day because it diluted their Basketball First doctrine.
This must be driving them crazy, unless they’d moved on, or they see that it is Eyeballs and TV contracts that drive everything now, not Duke/Heels Basketball Home and Home.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Sep 18, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Having spent the first 18 years of my life in orlando
I can tell you that UCF would have HUGE issues. Here are the types of people that go to UCF:
Who clearly clash with the rest of the ACC:
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljm01vWksE1qcusewo1_500.jpg
These are clearly exaggerations (and blatently not true in Reagan’s case) but you get the point.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Several bloggers on here have almost convinced me that we don't want Rutgers
I thought we needed to keep adding balance up the Atlantic seaboard to fill in between Maryland and Boston College. However, at the very least we should take UConn for the basketball. Doing that makes the ACC even more dominant in that sport. In football I would so with USF to continue giving us recruiting options in that part of the state. They also would become an almost instant rival with the other two Florida schools in the conference.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 18, 2011 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Tech-Duke, UNC-UVA
A very important point regarding these two series. I don’t think that the little girl will break them up. However, it does seem possible that you’d have a round-robin within a pod of four, a permanent out-of-pod opponent, and then play another pod in its entirety. (I guess you’d have to figure out how to assign things when your pod is playing the pod with your permanent out-of-pod opponent, but it’d be feasible.) The post suggests only seven league games. I don’t see that happening, since then some are playing four home/three road and others have to play four on the road. It also requires more OOC scheduling, and unless the other superconferences go with seven-game league schedules, it will be hard to play anyone worthwhile for five OOC games.
Please stop talking about USF and UCF. They don’t bring anything to the table in terms of competitiveness or media markets.
by NoDak_jacket on Sep 19, 2011 5:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought a long time about whether to respond to your last comment . . .
“Please stop talking about USF and UCF. They don’t bring anything to the table in terms of competitiveness or media markets.”
I essentially agree with you, so do not take this as my being an apologist for either USF or UCF. I am not.
But the counter argument in favor of adding them would be that it is a move aimed at the future. With the crazy growth rate of the state of Florida the thought would be that these schools are a little like FSU was years ago before it became co-ed and before it actually starting acting more like a real university. So the argument would be that adding them is not based on who they are now but who they would become once they had ACC prestige to go along with their enrollment, their resources and their growing market share in Florida.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 19, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Rutgers?
UConn is kind of meh, they’ve only been playing football for a few years and I don’t think they can really get any better than they currently are. Rutgers sucks at everything, and I think people overestimate the “NY MARKETS!” effect. I would be pretty disappointed with adding these two teams.
I was at the ESPN Zone in Time Square
a few years back. I talked with the Manager. He doesn’t get any native NY fans on CFB Saturdays, it is all transplants pulling for Whisky/USC/Irish/Blackshirts/SEC, etc.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Sep 18, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I despise the thought
of adding these two teams. UC makes sense from a basketball standpoint, I suppose, but Rutgers? really? In what way does that benefit the ACC at ALL?
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Pod of death=LOL
Of course, it’s not preordained who lives and who dies. And to be the best, you have to beat the best. It would be great for SoS.
by jabbajacket on Sep 18, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
You aint kidding
As much as I miss the FSU battles. Having Clemson, FSU, and MIA in the same pod is kinda brutal. The other side says :go big or go home:
Reactions to comments
The old guard in NC would love a way to re-establish some sanity to the basketball schedule. I think two 8-team divisions with the old ACC in one and the new ACC in the other would make them exceedingly happy.
Rutgers is serious about their athletic teams and not too long ago was undefeated. Actually, their recent history is better than Syracuse.
My pod idea is simply based on geography. I think the actual alignment, when it plays out, will consider traditional rivalries as much as proximity.
I think there are so many rumors going around that no one can imagine the final outcome at this point. I heard that Texas will have to bring Texas Tech if they change conferences, but I cannot see how, or why, the ACC would want to add Lubbock to its footprint.
As for TV markets, the NYC TV market includes most of NJ and Connecticut.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
The Old Guard
Unlike the last time there was expansion the UNC and Duke supporters I know are actually at least neutral to this expansion. Some of that is they understand how big the potential problems of being left out in the cold are if you aren’t in one of the big 4 conferences when everyone goes to 16. But also I think they realize that the round robin is dead and will never come back. Before this round of expansion some delusional members of the old guard seem to think if they only could rescind the invitations it would all be back to the good old days, but I think they realize now that it can’t be stopped. So maybe they can get closer to it with an expanded conference.
Not to mention this expansion actually adds schools that play basketball, which the last expansion certainly didn’t.
From a football prospective I really don’t care to add Syracuse and Pitt, except if it keeps FSU, VT, and Clemson in the fold. Because lets face it Tech isn’t going to get an invitation from the SEC, so we’re best off it the other football oriented ACC schools stay put, and if this expansion accomplishes that then I’m all for it.
And on the idea of two basketball divisions:
I would love to make UNC and Duke happy by going old ACC and not. Namely putting UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, Maryland and UVA in one division, and then putting everyone else in the other. I like what it does for Tech’s recruiting (gets exposure in more northern cities), as long as there is enough cross-divisional games so that tech actually gets Duke or UNC in Atlanta every year.
by iamafirehazard on Sep 18, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
old ACC
I can’t imagine this sort of division happening. It would basically be saying we aren’t one big unified conference, we’re two conferences and we don’t want to be associated with the newcomers, even GT who’s been here for 33 years.
Also, we would probably divide into basketball divisions with 16 teams, and then we’d be old ACC anyway.
I don’t know that it says the conference isn’t unified because quite frankly the whole thing seems like a marriage of convenience more than anything else. So I don’t see why the conference needs to pretend that it is anything but that.
I actually think it is an interesting way to approach the whole super-conference idea. You kind of get the old smaller conferences, but essentially then they are affiliated with a sister conference for a larger number of “out of division” conference games and a championship tournament. So you get the yearly rivalries of a smaller group, but also a more regular set of opponents for the remaining parts of your schedule.
However, I think this works much better for basketball because there are more games. For football it basically means there are teams you’ll only see once every 4 or 5 years, which doesn’t make much sense.
by iamafirehazard on Sep 18, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you thinking Virgina Tech is moving to the SEC?
I think it’s a logical move.
Ron Artest = Ron (sm)Artest - He Is The Most Interesting Man In The World
by JoshChildressAfroIsCure4Cancer on Sep 18, 2011 12:20 PM EDT reply actions
I don't think that's likely now.
At the meeting where Syracuse and Pitt were voted in, the presidents all voted to up the conference exit fee to $20 million. Nothing like an old-fashioned Mexican Standoff to help hold the conference together.
They took the bar! The whole fucking bar!
by Profoundly Vague on Sep 18, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention that VT (and FSU for that matter) understand that there is a benefit to staying in the ACC as long as the conference is high profile enough to keep an autobid. It should be an easier conference to win than the SEC is, but will be good enough no one would question an undefeated season. Being King of the least dominant of the 4 major football conferences is a good potential spot to be in.
by iamafirehazard on Sep 18, 2011 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really
For all the glamour of the SEC. VT in my mind, is not an SEC school at heart. (Yes, I know I went to GT but I grew up in VA) VT is very much an ACC school. They want to be regarded as high quality school that the ACC represents. Not saying they are bad, just in comparison to the rest of current ACC. Going on USNWR.
Football wise they are very good, and take it seriously….. but they dont take it as seriously as you would need to be in order to be in the SEC. Alabama had, I believe, 4 coaches in 8 years prior to Nick Saban. Thats frick’n insane. Plus why go from being king to just one of the commoners? This also applies to FSU.
Dropping VT would be sad but I’d live with it if we added FSU!
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John Heisman FromTheRumbleSeat
by Winfield Featherston on Sep 18, 2011 2:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Side note
If C-USA, WAC, or MWC play their cards right they might be able to win AQ status in the BCS out of all this. Maybe the WAC and MWC could merge and C-USA merge with the Big East.
I see a Big 12/Big East/ Conference USA conference being created
USF, Louisville, and Cincinnati will be left out and they should merge with the Big 12 remnants and then add two or three teams from the C-USA. That would still be a fairly decent conference. No powerhouses, but they would be the fifth best conference if the four superconferences happen.
This will go a long way...
to keeping the ACC intact by adding both Pitt and the Cuse. A good strategic move by the league to prevent a raiding opportunity from the other leagues.
What we need now
is to add 15 and 16 that are football schools. Football is the moneymaker, football is the mastermind, football is the omnipotent demigod of college athletics, and we need to increase our profile to keep us around. Now the question is who:
- Texas: FUCK no. They have the strength and the money to go independent at any time, we are about as useful to them as graphing calculator is to a chicken. As far as long term options (and geography and culture for that matter) go: NOPE.
- West Virginia: That pesky culture fit comes along and rears its ugly head (They MIGHT not know what the “x” means in basic algebra problems), but otherwise a good option.
Theres a problem here: the list runs dry of viable options at this point. Problem? I think so.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Hmmm...
Any chance we tell Pitt to go grab its old buddy Penn State and drag it to the party? Maybe then UConn can fill the 16th spot without us looking like we just bought football classics in need of full restoration?
again
PSU would not take a step down from B1G money to come to the ACC. This is the reason I didn’t include them on the original list. There are, in short, no viable football schools left, unless we want to grab TCU from the big east too!
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
There is absolutely NOTHING in me that ever wants to go to Morgantown
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John Heisman FromTheRumbleSeat
by Winfield Featherston on Sep 18, 2011 8:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Interesting
I agree about football driving things, but not necessarily about needing to grab schools that are powerhouses. I mean Pitt was a top 25 team not too long ago. They are like most teams in the ACC. Almost every team has a chance. Which is why the ACC is so appealing to Pitt and Syracuse. While they dont think they will be vying for the championship every year, they will do decently enough year to year and make a bowl game most of the time.
This is what I think makes the ACC great. We have a few big guns (VT, FSU, MIA if they get their sh*t together) and a crap load of mid-tear teams that are actually pretty good on any given year with regular top 25 appearances even if only briefly, but hey its recognition. GT, UNC, NCST, CLEM, MD, BC, and recently even Wake every now and then. Ad Pitt into that. thats what 10 of the soon to be 14 teams. Not too shabby.
Don't sell us short...
Only three schools have been to a bowl more consecutive years that Tech—VPI, FSU, and Florida. And FSU was dangerously close to losing that streak with a few .500 years not that long ago.
by jabbajacket on Sep 18, 2011 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Wild suggestion
What do you think we grab Vandy and stick it to the SEC? ;) They might actually go for it. Though I dont know if the rest of the SEC would think its a bad thing. Other than the average GPA just dropped 2pts.
Why would vandy
take less money? Its the only reason I didn’t include them in the original list.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
New media contracts
The ACC TV contract’s value just went up dramatically for basketball. We simply don’t know what the media contracts are going to be worth after all of the shake-ups happen, so it’s not clear Vandy would get less money out of moving. I don’t think it will happen, but saying someone’s going to get less revenue by moving to league X is not acknowledging the changing situation.
by NoDak_jacket on Sep 19, 2011 5:14 AM EDT up reply actions
And not to mention
They would play in a football conference where they have a better chance at success, which would lead to more money in ticket and merchandise sales. And their basketball team will finally have some real competition. With the increased value of ACC FB and BB TV contracts, I think that Vanderbilt would seriously consider an offer from the ACC.
Go Jackets, go America.
THWG.
Kansas
While Texas and Kansas seem enticing. I dont think it makes much of any sense. I personally think that if the what the press considers “lesser Big 12 schools” KU, K St, Iowa St, could form something with the Mountain west and make a decent go of a conference. Make it the Great Plains Conference or something. But it would do what the ACC has essentially done. Give the finger to the supposed big boys of college football and say,“Fine! if your not going to make a decision, then we will”
Please keep in mind I just came up with this off the top of my head so, it could use some real and actual thought. But the concept is there….I think. More later. ;)
Crazy theory
There is one football “power” (perhaps name is the better word) floating out there that hasn’t been brought up yet, Notre Dame. They give me an automatic gag reflex but at least Tech has a history of playing them.
The ACC has tried to grab Notre Dame before, could this be a push for them and not Texas?
Dismantling the Big East goes directly at making Notre Dame less stable, if it disintegrates they loose their league for all sports but football. They’ve said they want to stay independent but super-conferences may force their hand. The Big 10 makes more regional sense, but could Swofford be swinging for the fences?
by iamafirehazard on Sep 18, 2011 11:51 PM EDT reply actions
teevee monies
which is the driving force behind all this realignment huff anyways, wouldn’t allow it.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
16 Team Pod Scheduling (Football)
Assuming we go to 16 teams (pending) i think the best way to schedule a Pod format would be as follows:
To make it basic and not use team names (members of each pod TBD based on geography and rivalries)
Pod A
Team 1A
Team 2A
Team 3A
Team 4A
Pod B
Team 1B
Team 2B
Team 3B
Team 4B
Pod C
Team 1C
Team 2C
Team 3C
Team 4C
Pod D
Team 1D
Team 2D
Team 3D
Team 4D
From the perspective of Team 1A, it would play Teams 2A, 3A & 4A each year (3 games). Then Teams 1B, 1C, 1D, 2B, 2C, 2D the first year (6 games). The 2nd year play Teams 3B, 3C, 3D, 4B, 4C, 4D. This would allow any one team to play every school over a period of 2 seasons with 9 conference games a season. Not too bad. The third year would repeat the first year only home-away would be swapped. And the 4th year…some by the end of 4 years everyone has played everyone at least twice, once home, once away. That’s better than what we have now. I would imagine you’d probably lose some yearly rivalries, but I think this allows for teams to play each other most frequently. This could really be a model for any 16 team conference. The only real question then is how do you determine who plays in the Conference Championship Game. A list of tiebreakers or a semifinal/final? Anyway, I’d like to know your thoughts.
If you use a semifinal
…then you’d probably have to add a game against the winner of another pod (A vs. B and C vs. D), and then another in the conference championship game? The problem is that now you’d be up to14 games before you go to a bowl. Is there an NCAA rule against that? No one plays more than 14 in a season right now. Also, does an in-conference playoff make it that much tougher to get to the BCS?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on From The Rumble Seat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
