As Predicted By Anyone With A Brain, The ACC Is NOT Getting A TV Network | Page 15 | The Boneyard

As Predicted By Anyone With A Brain, The ACC Is NOT Getting A TV Network

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
240
Reaction Score
62
I still do not get the whole "academic" argument when discussing sports. Never did. Not when Virginia and UNC did not want FSU added to the ACC (because they did not fit the academic mold) and not when discussing Louisille.

Until they start rewarding playoff spots or bowls on academic performance or it affects the numbers of TV viewers, I see the whole argument as somewhat specious.

IMO it's a leftover from the bygone regional era of football. A throwback to when certain schools would not schedule others (read SEC) because the former thought the latter was not taking the student athlete role seriously.

I've the impetus for the Rose Bowl going to PAC vs BUG was to keep Southern opponents out.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,319
Reaction Score
46,496
It is abitrary. Yes, you are making my point, or at least see it. For National Universities, the Gap between no 1 and no 25 is huge. The gap between 25 and say 75 is large. Between 50 and 200 is not so large. There is one, but not so much. It is not linear, and trying to split hairs between someone ranked 65 and 165 is a waste of time. There is not much difference. There is a difference between 25 and 165, and there is a huge difference between 1 and 165. There are posters here telling me how wonderful schools ranked 65 are. 65? Are you kidding me?

In athletics, we select 25 to recognize. I thought I was being generous at 50. And the ACC does recognize its count of universities in the Top 50. They promote in on the ACCIAC website. It is 8, which is more than any other athletic conference than the Ivy League who also has 8. Their 8 are in the Top 25.

So all of this bruhaha about Louisville's academics and the ACC taking an academics dog is nonsense if the alternative is another school past 50. It if is compared to the ACC passing on Yale to take Louisville over academics, that would be different. I could see the complaint then.

You're wrong. It's been explained to you many times, but you're wrong. Using any metric out there, #50 is 10x better than #200.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,319
Reaction Score
46,496
I still do not get the whole "academic" argument when discussing sports. Never did. Not when Virginia and UNC did not want FSU added to the ACC (because they did not fit the academic mold) and not when discussing Louisille.

Until they start rewarding playoff spots or bowls on academic performance or it affects the numbers of TV viewers, I see the whole argument as somewhat specious.

We're not discussing sports. We're discussing academics.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
459
Reaction Score
542
It is abitrary. Yes, you are making my point, or at least see it. For National Universities, the Gap between no 1 and no 25 is huge. The gap between 25 and say 75 is large. Between 50 and 200 is not so large. There is one, but not so much. It is not linear, and trying to split hairs between someone ranked 65 and 165 is a waste of time. There is not much difference. There is a difference between 25 and 165, and there is a huge difference between 1 and 165. There are posters here telling me how wonderful schools ranked 65 are. 65? Are you kidding me?

In athletics, we select 25 to recognize. I thought I was being generous at 50. And the ACC does recognize its count of universities in the Top 50. They promote in on the ACCIAC website. It is 8, which is more than any other athletic conference than the Ivy League who also has 8. Their 8 are in the Top 25.

So all of this brouhaha about Louisville's academics and the ACC taking an academics dog is nonsense if the alternative is another school past 50. It if is compared to the ACC passing on Yale to take Louisville over academics, that would be different. I could see the complaint then.
The truth is the ACC rejected WVU partially if not solely on their academics. Granted Maryland was still present in the ACC - and my guess is that this was the real reason. As you have consistently pointed out a team looking to get into the ACC needs three sponsors. I don't know if they even got one. But the excuse the ACC gave to teh media was about WVU Academics. So it does appear hypocritical to now take Louisville. Furthermore to now discount the rationality behind the ACC's excuse for not taking WVU but taking Louisville as "well there is no difference in academic standing past 50", gives the impression that the story is changing before the ink is dry. The story being CR, the chapter of Louisville now being written. Personally, I would respect your opinions more if you would just state the obvious. The ACC did not want WVU at the time and the reason they gave no longer passes muster. But if you want to continue to defned their position then you will continue to give life to what I think is a dead story.

In my opinion the ACC did not want to come out and state that by taking Pitt and WVU they would be encroaching on another ACC Team's perceived territory. They took Pitt under ESPN's advisement and probably for some additional unknown reasons to which none of us may ever know the full details.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,499
Reaction Score
8,007
We're not discussing sports. We're discussing academics.

Sure you are..in a sports context.

Maybe your post was sincere and that you really think that Louisville and the ACC and academics as a discussion has nothing to do with sports conferences.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,319
Reaction Score
46,496
Sure you are..in a sports context.

Maybe your post was sincere and that you really think that Louisville and the ACC and academics as a discussion has nothing to do with sports conferences.

We're responding to stimpy who is looking at the USNWR. I've been on the Boneyard for years. I have made the point over and over again that academics as they relate to sports conferences don't matter. I see this as a weird ACC hangup, the kind of thing that ACC people like to say. We laughed about it after all those years of ACC types holding their nose at the inclusion of UConn's academics.

But stimpy is dead wrong in his knowledge of schools. Why anyone would choose 50 (on the bogus USNWP rankings no less) as an arbitrary cutoff is bizarre. To say the least. There are schools that were 50+ last year that are now in the 40s.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
269
Reaction Score
628
I dont think billy mean't tobacco rd voted against FSU just that they did holding their noses and needed convincing? Obviously Md wasn't convinced so i can see the FSU sympathy too L'ville. It's never easy getting 10 or 12 institutions on the same page when their agenda's/wants are so diverse.
Thanks. That may very well be what happened.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,499
Reaction Score
8,007
How it went down...FSU to ACC...from the mouths of the participants...How Tobacco Road almost submarined FSU's entry into the ACC. t was a close thing and left FSU in limbo with the SEC.



"At the annual ACC meetings on May 22 in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Florida State was mentioned for the first time. The discussions led Corrigan to schedule another meeting on July 25 at Sedgefield Country Club in Greensboro, N.C., in the exact room where the conference was formed in 1953.

Frustrated by the league's lack of focus on the expansion issue, Corrigan opted for a different approach at the Sedgefield meeting. "I said, 'Let's make believe that we've agreed to expand. Each one of you has to write down a name of school,' " Corrigan recalled.

The secret ballot of member schools turned up four votes each for Syracuse and Florida State.
By the close of the four-hour meeting, Corrigan had permission from the ACC athletic directors to approach both schools to gauge interest. His first call was to Syracuse A.D. Jake Crouthamel. Crouthamel expressed interest, but because the Orangemen were charter members of the Big East, said the ACC would have to build a strong case. Corrigan, however, was not interested in wining and dining and told Crouthamel: "Just forget I called."

His call to Goin, however, yielded a different response.
"Bob said, 'Oh my goodness, I was hoping there was some interest [from] the ACC,'" Corrigan said.
Time and popular opinion, at least among FSU's decision-makers, were not on Goin's side and he expressed those concerns to Corrigan during the initial phone call.

Corrigan said that Goin had informed him that talks with Kramer and SEC officials were moving swiftly.

"He [Goin] said, 'We don't have much time,' " said Corrigan, who arranged an Aug. 17 meeting with Sliger and Goin before a group of ACC faculty representatives at the league's offices in Greensboro.
"They were very impressive," Corrigan said of FSU's presentation. "I thought we might get a unanimous vote."

It did not take much to convince Corrigan that the addition of FSU would have a profound impact on the league. Not only would the Seminoles' football program lend credibility to the ACC, but the prospect of tapping into Florida's vast media market was particularly enticing.

Needing six affirmative votes for expansion -- and fully aware that Duke and Maryland were opposed -- Corrigan immediately set out on a whirlwind personal tour in an attempt to sell the league's university presidents.

Sliger and Goin returned to Tallahassee equally impressed, but facing an equally daunting charge -- altering the minds of those who wanted FSU to join the SEC.

Selling the idea

Corrigan had a gut feeling that the face-to-face meeting between Sliger, Goin and ACC representatives had gone well. "I think our people really liked Bernie," Corrigan said. "The funny thing about Bernie was he really wanted to go into the SEC, but he let other people make that decision."

And that probably was greatest reason for Corrigan's optimism. Goin, FSU's first-year A.D., was the point-man in the school's search for conference affiliation.

"Bob Goin and Gene Corrigan clicked immediately," said former FSU sports information director Wayne Hogan, a Goin confidant throughout the process. "They formed a very tight and lasting relationship right from the beginning."

Goin, however, didn't allow any perceived bias to prevent him from a thorough examination of the two leagues. Armed with comparative charts on subjects as diverse as average SAT scores of incoming freshmen, travel distances between FSU and the two league's schools and projected revenues from football attendance, television contracts and bowl receipts, Goin presented his case.

"My job was to do the pros and the cons and I did that," Goin said. "I shared it with a number of contstituencies there and after a time it started unfolding."

Not surprisingly, in the ACC's favor.

Wake Forest University President Thomas Hearn, who represented the ACC on the NCAA President's Commission, said Sliger's strong stance on academic reform put to rest any questions about FSU's off-field accountability. Sliger was also a member of the President's Commission.

"Bernie had already earned his stars," Hearn said. "No one had any doubt about the integrity of Florida State's commitment to academics."

Since its 1953 inception the ACC had made only one move in terms of membership, and that was replacing charter member South Carolina, which resigned in 1971, with Georgia Tech in 1978. Coincidentally, Georgia Tech had withdrawn from the SEC in 1964, while South Carolina ended 19 years of independence by joining the SEC in 1990.

Corrigan's greatest challenge wasn't selling the league on FSU, but on expansion in general. The eight schools had grown comfortable with their place in the NCAA hierarchy, their philosophies regarding academics and athletics and their revenue-sharing plan that offered the same financial benefits -- much of which came from its lucrative basketball television contract -- to all of its members.

Decision time

While conference affiliation would impact FSU's entire athletic program, suggesting that football was anything less than a major factor in expansion talk would be naive. So while Bowden was not directly involved in the decision, his support was critical in the process.

Not surprisingly, the Birmingham born-and-raised Seminoles coach -- who spent one year as a quarterback at Alabama -- said the SEC was "emotionally" his first choice. Even so, he carefully weighed all options.

"I was probably involved just about as much as anybody in that I agreed to [the ACC]," Bowden said. "I think if I would have wanted to fight for the SEC it might have caused some concerns for everybody, but I didn't feel that way.

"When you started looking at it from a financial perspective and what's best for us, I felt pretty sure what we should do is go ahead and join the ACC. ... Bob [Goin] had it laid out pretty good. I'll be honest with you, it was a no-brainer."

Haggard, like many on the advisory committee, valued Bowden's view on the choice of conference.
"Bobby was totally SEC when it started," Haggard said. "As Bobby's thinking changed, our thinking changed. It ended up unanimous ACC."

By the time a contingent of ACC school and league officials made their Sept. 2 tour of FSU's campus, the league had already made substantial gains on the SEC's initial foothold. Finances, football and basketball prowess aside, the ACC's overall image -- specifically its academic reputation -- had left a strong impression.

"More people here wanted the ACC; that's what really changed me," Sliger said. "The faculty really wanted the ACC. There were very few [faculty members] that had gone to the SEC, but many of them had gone to North Carolina and Virginia, places like that."

While the ACC and FSU continued to discover common ground through the search process, the SEC was losing ground. In early August, athletic directors Joe Dean of LSU and Hootie Ingram, who was at Alabama after nine years with FSU, publicly proclaimed the Seminoles would join the SEC. Time, however, was no longer on the SEC's side and Kramer's timing made it even worse.

Kramer and top aide Mark Womack made their official visit and presentation in Tallahassee on Sept. 11, perhaps not coincidentally, the same day that Corrigan arranged a conference call with the ACC's university presidents to make his final presentation for expansion and Florida State.

Hogan vividly remembers the SEC presentation before the entire FSU athletic department.
"That very day, when Bob Goin and Roy Kramer sat in the room there was very much a different dynamic," Hogan said. "It was very stiff and very cold. ....

"The SEC in those days was certainly the 3,000-pound gorilla. They kept putting out vibes, 'How could you not want to play with us? We've already got a great deal going; wouldn't you want to jump on our train?' "

Whether real or merely perceived, the vibes generated from the SEC's presentation didn't sit well with some at FSU.

"There was quite a bit of feeling that we didn't want to be entrapped; a feeling among some of the fans that if we go into that conference that has been dominated by the Alabamas, Auburns and Georgias we'd be kind of a stepchild," Miller said. "[That] we wouldn't get the respect we deserved."

While Kramer emerged from the five-hour long meeting with FSU officials, declining comment on the school's possible membership, Corrigan forged ahead. His conference call with the presidents went so well that he set a conference call vote on expansion for 9:30 the following morning.

The aftermath

Corrigan woke up on Sept. 12, 1990 certain he had the six votes necessary to move ahead and expand. Duke and Maryland, he knew, would cast the only no votes. He was even more certain that if the league agreed on expansion, adding Florida State would be nothing more than a formality.

In a matter of minutes, Corrigan saw all the hard work on the delicate issue come apart. Clemson, Georgia Tech and Virginia, the strongest supporters on the issue and FSU all along, voted for expansion. Duke and Maryland voted against, but to Corrigan's surprise, North Carolina, North Carolina State and Wake Forest abstained; the equivalent of three no votes.


Expansion was suddenly dead.

"Corrigan was just about in tears when the vote was over," said Tom Mickle, Corrigan's top aide.
"All of a sudden we've got these abstentions," Corrigan recalled. "I've got the athletic directors on another line waiting. ... A couple of them went ballistic."

The resounding voice of the AD's was: "That's not the way we thought we were voting."
Corrigan could have let the issue die, but after conferring with the athletic directors, agreed to have a second vote at 7 p.m., after the abstaining parties had the opportunity to hammer out final questions.

Meanwhile, the SEC had caught wind of the ACC's intention to hold an expansion vote and quickly convened its own conference call. They voted to not extend Florida State an invitation to the conference.

Goin and the Seminoles were in limbo.
As the second vote was taking place Goin was on a plane to an in-state function, kept abreast of the proceedings via cell phone from Hogan, who was in constant communication with Corrigan and Mickle.

At the same time Goin said he was, "dodging Kramer's call because I didn't want him to tell me he didn't want me."

"That was some tense times," Hogan said. "Had that vote not gone our way, we were screwed."
"There was anxiety, but at the same token, I was representing a pretty good university," Goin said . "If you're not carrying a very strong deck, I would have had more anxiety. I don't think we would have been in the open market very long."

It didn't matter. The re-vote went 6-2 in favor of expansion and 8-0 in favor of the Seminoles. FSU had a new home.
Corrigan extended FSU its formal invitation the following day -- Sept. 13 -- and FSU accepted without hesitation.

Kramer said he has no hard feelings about Florida State's maneuvering. Asked if, in the end, he felt Florida State had played the SEC's offer against the ACC's, Kramer said:
"Officially, no. I had known Bernie [Sliger] forever and considered him a friend. I dealt with him and he was very up front. I never felt we were being used.''

.
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,051
Reaction Score
130,755
The SEC and Florida State had a weird history with Florida trying to get them in on an almost yearly basis - but I thought the SEC had finally relented at the end and offered FSU a spot?
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
246
Reaction Score
70
We're responding to stimpy who is looking at the USNWR. I've been on the Boneyard for years. I have made the point over and over again that academics as they relate to sports conferences don't matter. I see this as a weird ACC hangup, the kind of thing that ACC people like to say. We laughed about it after all those years of ACC types holding their nose at the inclusion of UConn's academics.

But stimpy is dead wrong in his knowledge of schools. Why anyone would choose 50 (on the bogus USNWP rankings no less) as an arbitrary cutoff is bizarre. To say the least. There are schools that were 50+ last year that are now in the 40s.

FWIW, IMO, I think you are correct in your comments about the USNWP report "cutoffs" comment. While the USNWP rankings are not PERFECTLY linear (as, IMO, would be impossible for any such survey), there is a broad linear construct to them. To say there is not as much a difference between #50-#200 as #1-#25 is, IMO, more of a personal opinion; as I don't think you can point to the data to draw such a conclusion.

I would disagree with your "bogus" reference to the USNWR survey. Like all such surveys, they rank schools based on a set of data points. IMO, the broader question is whether those data points, and their respective weightings, measure the full spectrum of academic excellence for any institution. My opinion is that there are lots of other metrics - both intangible and intangible - that measure academic quality, specifically as it applies to the individual student.

From what I can see, most schools, Uconn included, generously use these data points to tell their own stories of academic success. Many students and parents use them as de-facto measuring sticks. While I think this and the other established surveys provide value, it is, IMO, a mistake to rely on them exclusively to make broad generalizations about academics as some in this thread seem to be doing.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
269
Reaction Score
628
You're wrong. It's been explained to you many times, but you're wrong. Using any metric out there, #50 is 10x better than #200.

College rankings are the epitome of what Mark Twain said about statistics. We have seen over and over how college rankings have been used and abused by those with an agenda.

Since the ACC universities comes out pretty well in the USNWR rankings, it is no surprise that Swofford, the ACC, and other advocates pimp the rankings. The Big Ten comes out very well with AAU status with 13 out of 14 (as of July) members of the AAU, even beating the Ivy League proportion. So Delany, the Big Ten and others pimp the AAU.

I get the argument that USNWR is more relevant here (under the big assumption that their statistical methods aren't flawed), because we are dealing with student athletes, who are all virtually undergraduates, and USNWR gives a higher weight to undergraduate data. So, for the moment, let's assume that these rankings are worth more than the toilet paper it's written on. I honestly don't know if the gap between 25 and 51 is greater than the gap between 51 and 165 in terms of quality. First of all, it's different than comparing college athletics, in particular, FBS football, in which there are only about 135 teams, with the academic ranking of all 2500 or so colleges. And if there was little or no difference between schools ranked in the 50s and in the 160s, we would see a lot of colleges jumping around between those two rankings. I don't know that is the case, but every time I check Maryland and Rutgers rankings, they have been consistently in the 50s and 60s. Further, I am sure Louisville and the ACC would be happier if their rankings were in the 50s and 60s as opposed to 165. My guess is Louisville may have convinced the ACC that they would improve their USNWR ranking.

Billybud's point about academics and athletics got me thinking. I disagree that academics should have nothing to do with conference affiliation. Most conferences that have been successful and thriving had criteria other than athletics that were similar. This includes geography, type of institution, missions, and academics. But it got me thinking that if conferences want to showcase the success of academics, then they shouldn't be looking at AAU status or USNWR rankings. They should look at the academic quality and success of their student-athletes. The fact is that many colleges' student-athletes academic quality and success are below the general student body. A comparison of those statistics are going to be relevant. I know Division II conferences compile such data, at least student gpas. I imagine Division I does as well, but they aren't as well publicized on conference websites. And what's worse if the allegations regarding UNC are true. In that case, UNC's academic ranking is completely irrelevant while these events allegedly occurred.

With respect to UConn, their USNWR ranking in the 50s. In addition, they just fall shy of AAU standards (at the moment) would make them attractive to both the ACC and Big Ten in terms of academics.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,319
Reaction Score
46,496
With respect to UConn, their USNWR ranking in the 50s, and just falling shy of AAU standards (at the moment) would make them attractive to both the ACC and Big Ten in terms of academics.

There are actually multiple AAU schools in the 100s.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,319
Reaction Score
46,496
FWIW, IMO, I think you are correct in your comments about the USNWP report "cutoffs" comment. While the USNWP rankings are not PERFECTLY linear (as, IMO, would be impossible for any such survey), there is a broad linear construct to them. To say there is not as much a difference between #50-#200 as #1-#25 is, IMO, more of a personal opinion; as I don't think you can point to the data to draw such a conclusion.

I would disagree with your "bogus" reference to the USNWR survey. Like all such surveys, they rank schools based on a set of data points. IMO, the broader question is whether those data points, and their respective weightings, measure the full spectrum of academic excellence for any institution. My opinion is that there are lots of other metrics - both intangible and intangible - that measure academic quality, specifically as it applies to the individual student.

From what I can see, most schools, Uconn included, generously use these data points to tell their own stories of academic success. Many students and parents use them as de-facto measuring sticks. While I think this and the other established surveys provide value, it is, IMO, a mistake to rely on them exclusively to make broad generalizations about academics as some in this thread seem to be doing.

The ranking relies on the president's questionnaire. Have you seen the questionnaire filled out by the new Pres. of PSU back when he was Florida State's Prez? It's on the internet. BC is a third tier school behind USF in his survey.

Carnegie and the NRC put millions of dollars behind their assessments. They comb through departmental data, and academic departments spend thousands of hours of manpower putting together their reports.

Even those rankings are flawed, but not nearly to the degree that USNWR are flawed, as they rely mostly on the Presidents' questionnaire. Heck, USNWR had to admit it didn't understand the Carnegie rankings when it tried to copy them by sticking some schools in Tier 2 and tier 3. Carnegie told them they had totally misinterpreted the rankings.

Look at Reed College on the US News list. This is a school that is way, way, way down in the rankings but most people consider it top 10-15 for liberal arts schools. On par with, say, Haverford.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
269
Reaction Score
628
There are actually multiple AAU schools in the 100s.

I'm not surprised since USNWR and AAU use different criteria.

I just saw the sentence you quoted me was misleading, so I edited it for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
269
Reaction Score
628
How it went down...FSU to ACC...from the mouths of the participants...How Tobacco Road almost submarined FSU's entry into the ACC. t was a close thing and left FSU in limbo with the SEC.



"At the annual ACC meetings on May 22 in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Florida State was mentioned for the first time. The discussions led Corrigan to schedule another meeting on July 25 at Sedgefield Country Club in Greensboro, N.C., in the exact room where the conference was formed in 1953.

Frustrated by the league's lack of focus on the expansion issue, Corrigan opted for a different approach at the Sedgefield meeting. "I said, 'Let's make believe that we've agreed to expand. Each one of you has to write down a name of school,' " Corrigan recalled.

The secret ballot of member schools turned up four votes each for Syracuse and Florida State.
By the close of the four-hour meeting, Corrigan had permission from the ACC athletic directors to approach both schools to gauge interest. His first call was to Syracuse A.D. Jake Crouthamel. Crouthamel expressed interest, but because the Orangemen were charter members of the Big East, said the ACC would have to build a strong case. Corrigan, however, was not interested in wining and dining and told Crouthamel: "Just forget I called."

His call to Goin, however, yielded a different response.
"Bob said, 'Oh my goodness, I was hoping there was some interest [from] the ACC,'" Corrigan said.
Time and popular opinion, at least among FSU's decision-makers, were not on Goin's side and he expressed those concerns to Corrigan during the initial phone call.

Corrigan said that Goin had informed him that talks with Kramer and SEC officials were moving swiftly.

"He [Goin] said, 'We don't have much time,' " said Corrigan, who arranged an Aug. 17 meeting with Sliger and Goin before a group of ACC faculty representatives at the league's offices in Greensboro.
"They were very impressive," Corrigan said of FSU's presentation. "I thought we might get a unanimous vote."

It did not take much to convince Corrigan that the addition of FSU would have a profound impact on the league. Not only would the Seminoles' football program lend credibility to the ACC, but the prospect of tapping into Florida's vast media market was particularly enticing.

Needing six affirmative votes for expansion -- and fully aware that Duke and Maryland were opposed -- Corrigan immediately set out on a whirlwind personal tour in an attempt to sell the league's university presidents.

Sliger and Goin returned to Tallahassee equally impressed, but facing an equally daunting charge -- altering the minds of those who wanted FSU to join the SEC.

Selling the idea

Corrigan had a gut feeling that the face-to-face meeting between Sliger, Goin and ACC representatives had gone well. "I think our people really liked Bernie," Corrigan said. "The funny thing about Bernie was he really wanted to go into the SEC, but he let other people make that decision."

And that probably was greatest reason for Corrigan's optimism. Goin, FSU's first-year A.D., was the point-man in the school's search for conference affiliation.

"Bob Goin and Gene Corrigan clicked immediately," said former FSU sports information director Wayne Hogan, a Goin confidant throughout the process. "They formed a very tight and lasting relationship right from the beginning."

Goin, however, didn't allow any perceived bias to prevent him from a thorough examination of the two leagues. Armed with comparative charts on subjects as diverse as average SAT scores of incoming freshmen, travel distances between FSU and the two league's schools and projected revenues from football attendance, television contracts and bowl receipts, Goin presented his case.

"My job was to do the pros and the cons and I did that," Goin said. "I shared it with a number of contstituencies there and after a time it started unfolding."

Not surprisingly, in the ACC's favor.

Wake Forest University President Thomas Hearn, who represented the ACC on the NCAA President's Commission, said Sliger's strong stance on academic reform put to rest any questions about FSU's off-field accountability. Sliger was also a member of the President's Commission.

"Bernie had already earned his stars," Hearn said. "No one had any doubt about the integrity of Florida State's commitment to academics."

Since its 1953 inception the ACC had made only one move in terms of membership, and that was replacing charter member South Carolina, which resigned in 1971, with Georgia Tech in 1978. Coincidentally, Georgia Tech had withdrawn from the SEC in 1964, while South Carolina ended 19 years of independence by joining the SEC in 1990.

Corrigan's greatest challenge wasn't selling the league on FSU, but on expansion in general. The eight schools had grown comfortable with their place in the NCAA hierarchy, their philosophies regarding academics and athletics and their revenue-sharing plan that offered the same financial benefits -- much of which came from its lucrative basketball television contract -- to all of its members.

Decision time

While conference affiliation would impact FSU's entire athletic program, suggesting that football was anything less than a major factor in expansion talk would be naive. So while Bowden was not directly involved in the decision, his support was critical in the process.

Not surprisingly, the Birmingham born-and-raised Seminoles coach -- who spent one year as a quarterback at Alabama -- said the SEC was "emotionally" his first choice. Even so, he carefully weighed all options.

"I was probably involved just about as much as anybody in that I agreed to [the ACC]," Bowden said. "I think if I would have wanted to fight for the SEC it might have caused some concerns for everybody, but I didn't feel that way.

"When you started looking at it from a financial perspective and what's best for us, I felt pretty sure what we should do is go ahead and join the ACC. ... Bob [Goin] had it laid out pretty good. I'll be honest with you, it was a no-brainer."

Haggard, like many on the advisory committee, valued Bowden's view on the choice of conference.
"Bobby was totally SEC when it started," Haggard said. "As Bobby's thinking changed, our thinking changed. It ended up unanimous ACC."

By the time a contingent of ACC school and league officials made their Sept. 2 tour of FSU's campus, the league had already made substantial gains on the SEC's initial foothold. Finances, football and basketball prowess aside, the ACC's overall image -- specifically its academic reputation -- had left a strong impression.

"More people here wanted the ACC; that's what really changed me," Sliger said. "The faculty really wanted the ACC. There were very few [faculty members] that had gone to the SEC, but many of them had gone to North Carolina and Virginia, places like that."

While the ACC and FSU continued to discover common ground through the search process, the SEC was losing ground. In early August, athletic directors Joe Dean of LSU and Hootie Ingram, who was at Alabama after nine years with FSU, publicly proclaimed the Seminoles would join the SEC. Time, however, was no longer on the SEC's side and Kramer's timing made it even worse.

Kramer and top aide Mark Womack made their official visit and presentation in Tallahassee on Sept. 11, perhaps not coincidentally, the same day that Corrigan arranged a conference call with the ACC's university presidents to make his final presentation for expansion and Florida State.

Hogan vividly remembers the SEC presentation before the entire FSU athletic department.
"That very day, when Bob Goin and Roy Kramer sat in the room there was very much a different dynamic," Hogan said. "It was very stiff and very cold. ....

"The SEC in those days was certainly the 3,000-pound gorilla. They kept putting out vibes, 'How could you not want to play with us? We've already got a great deal going; wouldn't you want to jump on our train?' "

Whether real or merely perceived, the vibes generated from the SEC's presentation didn't sit well with some at FSU.

"There was quite a bit of feeling that we didn't want to be entrapped; a feeling among some of the fans that if we go into that conference that has been dominated by the Alabamas, Auburns and Georgias we'd be kind of a stepchild," Miller said. "[That] we wouldn't get the respect we deserved."

While Kramer emerged from the five-hour long meeting with FSU officials, declining comment on the school's possible membership, Corrigan forged ahead. His conference call with the presidents went so well that he set a conference call vote on expansion for 9:30 the following morning.

The aftermath

Corrigan woke up on Sept. 12, 1990 certain he had the six votes necessary to move ahead and expand. Duke and Maryland, he knew, would cast the only no votes. He was even more certain that if the league agreed on expansion, adding Florida State would be nothing more than a formality.

In a matter of minutes, Corrigan saw all the hard work on the delicate issue come apart. Clemson, Georgia Tech and Virginia, the strongest supporters on the issue and FSU all along, voted for expansion. Duke and Maryland voted against, but to Corrigan's surprise, North Carolina, North Carolina State and Wake Forest abstained; the equivalent of three no votes.


Expansion was suddenly dead.

"Corrigan was just about in tears when the vote was over," said Tom Mickle, Corrigan's top aide.
"All of a sudden we've got these abstentions," Corrigan recalled. "I've got the athletic directors on another line waiting. ... A couple of them went ballistic."

The resounding voice of the AD's was: "That's not the way we thought we were voting."
Corrigan could have let the issue die, but after conferring with the athletic directors, agreed to have a second vote at 7 p.m., after the abstaining parties had the opportunity to hammer out final questions.

Meanwhile, the SEC had caught wind of the ACC's intention to hold an expansion vote and quickly convened its own conference call. They voted to not extend Florida State an invitation to the conference.

Goin and the Seminoles were in limbo.
As the second vote was taking place Goin was on a plane to an in-state function, kept abreast of the proceedings via cell phone from Hogan, who was in constant communication with Corrigan and Mickle.

At the same time Goin said he was, "dodging Kramer's call because I didn't want him to tell me he didn't want me."

"That was some tense times," Hogan said. "Had that vote not gone our way, we were screwed."
"There was anxiety, but at the same token, I was representing a pretty good university," Goin said . "If you're not carrying a very strong deck, I would have had more anxiety. I don't think we would have been in the open market very long."

It didn't matter. The re-vote went 6-2 in favor of expansion and 8-0 in favor of the Seminoles. FSU had a new home.
Corrigan extended FSU its formal invitation the following day -- Sept. 13 -- and FSU accepted without hesitation.

Kramer said he has no hard feelings about Florida State's maneuvering. Asked if, in the end, he felt Florida State had played the SEC's offer against the ACC's, Kramer said:
"Officially, no. I had known Bernie [Sliger] forever and considered him a friend. I dealt with him and he was very up front. I never felt we were being used.''

.

Thanks for the recap, Billybud. I guess my recollection was only partially correct. I thought Maryland was the only dissenter. But I see that Duke and Maryland were both against expansion. But after that vote, Maryland did agree to accept FSU. Interesting story. The ACC definitely got the better of the SEC on this one.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,499
Reaction Score
8,007
The real interesting thing in this story, and Maryland's defection, is how much just one man can mean.

FSU was signed, sealed and delivered to the SEC......except that the FSU AD (Bob Goin) and the ACC Commissioner really clicked while the SEC Commissioner and the FSU AD did not.

Bob Goin steered the entire course...moving the President, the realignment committee (with Haggard), and Bobby Bowden.

Us older Nole fans have not forgotten Maryland (it pleased me to see FSU kick them out of the ACC tournament) and haven't forgotten the back tracking of Tobacco Road.

I'd feed 'em all of the "bob wire" that they could eat (as my Alabama folk might say).
 
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
2,444
Reaction Score
1,020
The real interesting thing in this story, and Maryland's defection, is how much just one man can mean.

FSU was signed, sealed and delivered to the SEC.except that the FSU AD (Bob Goin) and the ACC Commissioner really clicked while the SEC Commissioner and the FSU AD did not.

Bob Goin steered the entire course...moving the President, the realignment committee (with Haggard), and Bobby Bowden.

Us older Nole fans have not forgotten Maryland (it pleased me to see FSU kick them out of the ACC tournament) and haven't forgotten the back tracking of Tobacco Road.

I'd feed 'em all of the "bob wire" that they could eat (as my Alabama folk might say).
Yeah billy thanks for taking the time.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
The truth is the ACC rejected WVU partially if not solely on their academics. Granted Maryland was still present in the ACC - and my guess is that this was the real reason. As you have consistently pointed out a team looking to get into the ACC needs three sponsors. I don't know if they even got one. But the excuse the ACC gave to teh media was about WVU Academics. So it does appear hypocritical to now take Louisville. Furthermore to now discount the rationality behind the ACC's excuse for not taking WVU but taking Louisville as "well there is no difference in academic standing past 50", gives the impression that the story is changing before the ink is dry. The story being CR, the chapter of Louisville now being written. Personally, I would respect your opinions more if you would just state the obvious. The ACC did not want WVU at the time and the reason they gave no longer passes muster. But if you want to continue to defned their position then you will continue to give life to what I think is a dead story.

In my opinion the ACC did not want to come out and state that by taking Pitt and WVU they would be encroaching on another ACC Team's perceived territory. They took Pitt under ESPN's advisement and probably for some additional unknown reasons to which none of us may ever know the full details.

I've never heard any ACC official discuss WVU. Who told you that Academics was the reason that the ACC didn't want WVU? They are once again another school past 50, but the ACC has 7 others in that category. Academics are not a plus. I'm not sure they are a deal breaker. Fan behavior is what I've heard along with less than 2 million in the whole state. I just think better choices have been available when the timing occurred.

When the ACC added Miami, VT, and BC, the ACC wanted Miami, BC, and Syracuse. Politics around expansion by Duke and UNC enabled UVA's John Casteen to get Virginia Tech in at the time. BC came in a year later.

The ACC wanted Syracuse when it added Florida State. Syracuse wasn't interested then. So we know that the first chance it had that the ACC would add Syracuse. In 2011, when the ACC wanted 2 schools, it added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. There was support at that time to add UConn because of basketball. We've gone over why Pittsburgh vs UConn many times. I have never heard an argument for adding WVU over Pittsburgh and UConn.

When Maryland left, WVU wasn't available. So WVU was never discussed then either. Had Louisville gone to the Big XII over WVU, then WVU would have been available in 2011. The same corners of the ACC that sponsored Louisville might have sponsored WVU then. I can't say.

WVU wanted into the ACC in 1953 as did Virginia Tech. But in 1953 there were no US interstate highways. The ACC are the remnants of the Southern Conference east of the Appalachian Mountains. The schools of the ACC did not invite either because they are both right in the Mountain Chain albeit VT is in a valley, and the ACC schools did not want to try to drive to and from them on the country roads that were available in 1953 through the mountains.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
I still do not get the whole "academic" argument when discussing sports. Never did. Not when Virginia and UNC did not want FSU added to the ACC (because they did not fit the academic mold) and not when discussing Louisille.

Until they start rewarding playoff spots or bowls on academic performance or it affects the numbers of TV viewers, I see the whole argument as somewhat specious.

We're not just talking sports, and within sports we're not just talking football. Football is one of 27 sports that the ACC sponsors. And Academic collaberation through the ACCIAC is part of what is important to the conference as well. The ACC has always focused on high academic standards, and for the first half of its existence had higher academic standards than the NCAA for athletes. South Carolina left the league in 1971 because it wanted to lower its academic standards for its football team. They wandered in the wilderness for 25 years and watched Clemson win a football National Championship. Now they are in the league with the lowest academic standards and aren't a threat to win it in football. Now they have once again watched Clemson win a BCS Bowl game. But they seem happy as a SEC also rand in football. They won a baseball championship.

The expansion game lately has changed things. Now we aren't talking sports, academics, or football. We're talking cable boxes and television viewers. The Big Ten just added two football and basketball dogs to get cable boxes and they like AAU schools. The Big XII added WVU to get viewers and ratings. The ACC added Notre Dame because the ACC has always wanted Notre Dame since the 1980s. There is a lot of synergy culturally.

It seems that today the only conferences worried about academics are the ACC and the Big Ten. The SEC has never cared, and the SEC only has 1 school in the top 50 academically. The Big XII has a hard time finding enough teams to sponsor many of its sports. Only 3 schools have men's swimming. only 4 have wrestling, etc. They could fall below the Division I minimums because their schools are not on the same page with like sports portfolios. Some Big XII schools may care about academics, but not as a whole. The PAC 12 does its own thing.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,499
Reaction Score
8,007
You will not find any official ACC take on WVU....most of what is bandied about is internet speculation that, over time and multiple repeats, becomes fact.

I have no doubt that WVU had some problems with support from within the ACC....the Eers were outside of the geographic parameters of the original 1953 ACC.

If FSU had problems with getting votes from the tea sippers, I'd assume that WVU would have had even more of a problem.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,499
Reaction Score
8,007
We're not just talking sports, and within sports we're not just talking football. Football is one of 27 sports that the ACC sponsors. And Academic collaberation through the ACCIAC is part of what is important to the conference as well. The ACC has always focused on high academic standards, and for the first half of its existence had higher academic standards than the NCAA for athletes. South Carolina left the league in 1971 because it wanted to lower its academic standards for its football team. They wandered in the wilderness for 25 years and watched Clemson win a football National Championship. Now they are in the league with the lowest academic standards and aren't a threat to win it in football. Now they have once again watched Clemson win a BCS Bowl game. But they seem happy as a SEC also rand in football. They won a baseball championship.

The expansion game lately has changed things. Now we aren't talking sports, academics, or football. We're talking cable boxes and television viewers. The Big Ten just added two football and basketball dogs to get cable boxes and they like AAU schools. The Big XII added WVU to get viewers and ratings. The ACC added Notre Dame because the ACC has always wanted Notre Dame since the 1980s. There is a lot of synergy culturally.

It seems that today the only conferences worried about academics are the ACC and the Big Ten. The SEC has never cared, and the SEC only has 1 school in the top 50 academically. The Big XII has a hard time finding enough teams to sponsor many of its sports. Only 3 schools have men's swimming. only 4 have wrestling, etc. They could fall below the Division I minimums because their schools are not on the same page with like sports portfolios. Some Big XII schools may care about academics, but not as a whole. The PAC 12 does its own thing.

Why would the SEC care? We talk about academics when we aren't the best at sports. A conference is 95% a sports affiliation and 5% an academic cooperative.

I worked at FSU, and educators talk about academics since that is their profession. Career academic folks talk academics....sports fans and athletic department staff talk sports. And sports fans of teams that don't do as well at sports, talk about academics if that is what they can brag about.

Re the ACCIAC...it is a nice feature...but has a very, very, very small impact.

I get it that universities are first and foremost institutions of education...but I also get it that conferences are first and foremost sports affiliates.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
IMO it's a leftover from the bygone regional era of football. A throwback to when certain schools would not schedule others (read SEC) because the former thought the latter was not taking the student athlete role seriously.

I've the impetus for the Rose Bowl going to PAC vs BUG was to keep Southern opponents out.

The Rose Bowl reason for going to the PAC 12 and B1G was that the Rose Bowl wanted to protest Segregation. They had to find two suitable football conferences to schedule that did not have any schools in Segregated States. There was also good attendance at the games featuring Big Ten schools.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
Why would the SEC care? We talk about academics when we aren't the best at sports. A conference is 95% a sports affiliation and 5% an academic cooperative.

I worked at FSU, and educators talk about academics since that is their profession. Career academic folks talk academics....sports fans and athletic department staff talk sports. And sports fans of teams that don't do as well at sports, talk about academics if that is what they can brag about.

Re the ACCIAC...it is a nice feature...but has a very, very, very small impact.

I get it that universities are first and foremost institutions of education...but I also get it that conferences are first and foremost sports affiliates.

Think about the makeup of the ACC expansion committee. (4 Presidents, 4 Athetics Directors, 4 Faculty Reps). There is a reason the Faculty Reps are there, and I can assure you that it isn't bowl appearances. I sincerely doubt that the faculty is ever considered or consulted in SEC matters. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Maybe at Vanderbilt who doesn't have a separate Athletic Department anymore.
 

pj

Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
8,614
Reaction Score
25,035
It is abitrary. Yes, you are making my point, or at least see it. For National Universities, the Gap between no 1 and no 25 is huge. The gap between 25 and say 75 is large. Between 50 and 200 is not so large. There is one, but not so much. It is not linear, and trying to split hairs between someone ranked 65 and 165 is a waste of time. There is not much difference. There is a difference between 25 and 165, and there is a huge difference between 1 and 165. There are posters here telling me how wonderful schools ranked 65 are. 65? Are you kidding me?

In athletics, we select 25 to recognize. I thought I was being generous at 50. And the ACC does recognize its count of universities in the Top 50. They promote in on the ACCIAC website. It is 8, which is more than any other athletic conference than the Ivy League who also has 8. Their 8 are in the Top 25.

So all of this bruhaha about Louisville's academics and the ACC taking an academics dog is nonsense if the alternative is another school past 50. It if is compared to the ACC passing on Yale to take Louisville over academics, that would be different. I could see the complaint then.

It is much more reasonable to split schools into three groups:
1. Top-tier small highly selective institutions. Everybody (faculty and students) at these schools is smart and talented.
2. Middle-tier universities -- and all large public flagship universities fall in this group. Mixed quality, there are individuals who are as talented and smart as anyone in the country, but also plenty of dummies and mediocrities. Large size guarantees a lot of mediocrities, even where there is a lot of talent.
3. Bottom-tier universities -- nobody there is talented. If some talented person falls there by chance, they soon realize their mistake and get out.

UConn, Ohio State, Rutgers, University of Kentucky, UNC, Virginia are in group 2. They have a mix of people including top talents who are happy to be where they are.

Louisville is a bottom-tier university. No one stays there if they can get into a better place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
646
Guests online
3,256
Total visitors
3,902

Forum statistics

Threads
156,962
Messages
4,074,043
Members
9,962
Latest member
Boatbro


Top Bottom