- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,108
- Reaction Score
- 1,868
The ACC is NOT academically oriented.
Um, he said "compared to the big 12".
And even without that qualification the statement stands. especially when looking at all its private schools.
The ACC is NOT academically oriented.
DeFilippo said the move was dictated in part by the expansion of the Southeastern Conference to include Texas A&M, which prompted the Big 12 to inquire about Pittsburgh, which is in the Northeast, an area in which the ACC felt it necessary to expand.
“We wanted new playmates and we wanted Eastern playmates,’’ said DeFilippo. “When the Big 12 inquired about Pittsburgh, we asked, ‘Why let them come into our area?’ ’’
You know...the selection of a program by a conference is sort of like a guy picking a girl to dance out of a wall of young ladies....
Sometimes the best dancer doesn't get asked, sometimes the "looker" doesn't get asked....or the girl with rich parents (markets).
What floats someone's boat is an individual thing.....and I suppose it is that way with a conference...
The B1G evidently likes the smart girls....the Big 12 is afraid to dance
No...they evidently like the smart girls...even if they wear coke bottle lenses for glasses and have big legs with no ankles.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder,,,yada, yada.
I left out rich smart girls....even if they look like dray horses.
Most of the ACC's moves don't seem to be based on LT strategy unlike the B1G, SEC, and PAC12. These conferences seem to think that conference networks are the future and they focused their expansions on flagship state universities that would deliver top dollar to their networks. So far, it seems to be working....
In football, Louisville is currently superior to UConn. In basketball, a small edge to UConn. Potential revenue for a conference network, UConn is much more valuable, especially in helping to achieve top dollar in NYC and New England.
Final comment, an ACC with Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, and UConn is far more valuable than an ACC with BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville.
Spot on about the ACC.I think the inclusion of small brands like Wake, BC and to a lesser extent Pitt, in conjunction with having 4 schools in NC, is their major problem. Expansion isn't really a remedy unless they shed dead weight. Eventually, the most valuable brands/state flagships may need to realign.
For instance, Duke, UNC, UVA, VTech. FSU, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Miami, UConn and WVU and maybe a couple others would make a nice conference of better schools with good sports. That conference could get a nice network deal.
NC ST could go to the SEC and be happy and UL could go to the Big 12 with Cincy and love it. It would give networks two much stronger products to work with and probably help everyone.
This money problem will destroy the ACC in time. If UNC, Duke and UVA want to preserve their way of life, they may need to make some moves that undermine their conference because they can't or won't just kick schools out.
I don't see it. Of course everyone see that the ACC doesn't command the same viability high ground as the B1G, SEC, and Pac. Of course the ACC didn't have the same add options as the Big Three. But that doesn't excuse the lack of foresight needed to make their bad situation worse. Case in point: WVU vs. Louisville. The smug academicians at UNC, UVA, Duke, Wake Forest, BC, and Miami gave the Mountaineers a sneering finger because they fit to be associated with academically only to turn around with a tent in the front of their pants, flashing Louisville a crap eating grin. I know circumstances changed between the time WVU was seeking entry and Louisville's invitation, but that's exactly my point. Either they should have stuck with the strategy that rejected WVU or they shouldn't have adopted the strategy in the first place.Do people not get that the ACC doesn't have options like Texas A&M, Missouri and Colorado available to them?
They aren't stupid, they started with a lesser product.
If they were going to hold their noses on Louisville - they should have just added UConn and WVU - but it's not like that makes an ACC network viable or anything.
That's about the only other option they had.
...
2) Adding Miami was very smart -- who knew that Miami would implode? Anybody who read what Donna Shalala thought.
4) Adding Boston College -- doesn't getting a foothold into NEW TERRITORY (New England) sound wise? Unfortunately UConn was not viable at that time, and BC is now just ACC dead weight. Again, the point you fail to comprehend. Strategic thinking isn't present viability. It's about making decisions for the future.
Rutgers is a great financial addition for B1G already having BTN. Everybody and his brother could see that New York was the plum in the realignment pie. That the B1G pulled the trigger on Rutgers and the ACC didn't merely emphasizes the ACC's impotence.
Listen, you're being nice here. I don't want to drive you away. Just calling things the way I see them.
Ding! Ding!! Ding!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner.The winning strategy would have been to seek major publics and expand contiguously along the Atlantic Coast from the earliest possible date. If they had gone hard after Penn State and Rutgers at the same time they added FSU, the ACC would be much better situated, even if they only got Rutgers. V Tech and UConn then would have been the next moves.
It's easy to see why they didn't foresee the merits of that strategy, and did a lot of the moves they did. Penetrating virgin territory in New England was a good idea, but lack of contiguity with the rest of the ACC made it a weak entry, not to mention BC's lack of a large fan base and unwillingness to build its identity around athletics.
I still don't see the attraction of Syracuse, Pitt, or Louisville compared to a state flagship on the Atlantic coast and closer to the major population centers. None of those three were bad choices, but none have UConn's upside either.
In retrospect I think people will say the ACC's strategy was to reach west with Cuse, Pitt, and L'ville in order to give Notre Dame some nearby opponents that could take the place of the Midwestern B1G rivals like Michigan State, Purdue, and Michigan. This strategy only makes sense if Notre Dame becomes a full-time member and retains its national appeal. That's two bets that may never happen.
I am pretty confused how anyone could have seen that game last night and think their decision was shortsighted.
Let me preface my response by saying I don't think the ACC made a mistake, nor do I necessarily think their decision was completely shortsighted. However, your response is, by definition, shortsighted.
You can't look at a single game or a single team and say, 'see, this proves the ACC was correct.'
That narrow thinking is the reason why it *could* be a problematic long term selection. This isn't just about money, contrary to your suggestion. While that's the primary motivating factor for every conference, the ones that are making the most money (the Big Ten, SEC, etc.) are the ones that are careful to vet their members culturally and academically as well as athletically and financially. You don't see teams leaving those leagues because they have members that view the world through a similar lens and are on the same page.
It could be argued that the ACC took Louisville out of desperation and to cater to certain member(s) and did so going against certain standards half the league very much cares about. That's not a recipe for longterm stability, to be honest.
This move very well could pay dividends. It could mean a happy ending for the ACC. But if the Big 12 taught us anything, it could also mean future bickering and strife.
The conferences that are the best off are the ones that see the big picture and don't look at a single game performance and say "wow, they got it right!"
I don't see it. Of course everyone see that the ACC doesn't command the same viability high ground as the B1G, SEC, and Pac. Of course the ACC didn't have the same add options as the Big Three. But that doesn't excuse the lack of foresight needed to make their bad situation worse. Case in point: WVU vs. Louisville. The smug academicians at UNC, UVA, Duke, Wake Forest, BC, and Miami gave the Mountaineers a sneering finger because they fit to be associated with academically only to turn around with a tent in the front of their pants, flashing Louisville a crap eating grin. I know circumstances changed between the time WVU was seeking entry and Louisville's invitation, but that's exactly my point. Either they should have stuck with the strategy that rejected WVU or they shouldn't have adopted the strategy in the first place.
I've known they had it right all along. They should have added them before Syracuse and Pitt.
Monday was a great piece of evidence.
The ACC needs to sell sports. Louisville is about sports.
Ah, the straw man predictably raises it's ugly head. Sigh, no Whaler I'm not proposing that.So you are proposing that someone is going to leave the ACC because they added Louisville? Not because they could make 20 million more elsewhere?
Didn't sound like the vote was too close, so it's seems like quite a stretch since everyone willingly entered the GOR after Maryland left.
I still don't get why any of the schools would be dissatisfied with them? Academics? Yeah, they really take academics seriously at places like UNC.
I've known they had it right all along. They should have added them before Syracuse and Pitt.
Monday was a great piece of evidence.
The ACC needs to sell sports. Louisville is about sports.
Let me preface my response by saying I don't think the ACC made a mistake, nor do I necessarily think their decision was completely shortsighted. However, your response is, by definition, shortsighted.
You can't look at a single game or a single team and say, 'see, this proves the ACC was correct.'
That narrow thinking is the reason why it *could* be a problematic long term selection. This isn't just about money, contrary to your suggestion. While that's the primary motivating factor for every conference, the ones that are making the most money (the Big Ten, SEC, etc.) are the ones that are careful to vet their members culturally and academically as well as athletically and financially. You don't see teams leaving those leagues because they have members that view the world through a similar lens and are on the same page.
It could be argued that the ACC took Louisville out of desperation and to cater to certain member(s) and did so going against certain standards half the league very much cares about. That's not a recipe for longterm stability, to be honest.
This move very well could pay dividends. It could mean a happy ending for the ACC. But if the Big 12 taught us anything, it could also mean future bickering and strife.
The conferences that are the best off are the ones that see the big picture and don't look at a single game performance and say "wow, they got it right!"