Well, if that’s true we know what is going on. Schools that are confident they will leave the ACC when the GOR is up at the latest don’t want to lose their veto power over the conference or their right to choke the conferences growth that they can use for leverage.
Can't they admit new members and give them no voting powers over things like dissolution of the conference or anything GOR related? Would seem like the easy fix here.
Yes, assuming the core 4 is only worried about the future and not trying to get something from the rest of the conference NOW.
I think if the subject expansion had been made 10 years earlier, you are right. By 2011, however, we had just won our 3rd Natty in BB and were beating SU five straight in FB. SU has had 1 BB Natty period and spotty FB performance since then. In sum, there were other forces at work. If the decision was made on performance, support and trajectory, we should have been taken.
whatamazingthings.com
Bring back the Aeropostale football uniforms!
These are the types of things that really show this is mostly a good ole boys club. SMU ain't delivering no goshdarn Dallas market.
I feel SMU has two purposes. Get the ACC into a second time zone/new cable boxes and get the ACC into a massive football recruiting ground. They have no other purpose.
Smu won’t deliver the recruiting ground either. That is so overstated.
Except they could have and never did. This just has the feel of a pick up basketball game, where we are the last ones to get called and the captain is looking around and sees a grandma on the bench and asks her to play rather than ask us.
Disagree. It helps expand for all existing ACC members. Nebraska lost its recruiting ways moving from the B12 to the B1G- Texas gone/program down.
You know why they didn’t- because the ACC internally has conflicting vision. They are not unified.
Well they f u n k’d up because they waited too long and all that is left is Granny.
No it doesn't. Not in a state with 6 P4 teams. The ACC will never crack Texas, which is why they never bothered with Houston. Houston was there for the taking all along and is much better than SMU (it's also technically on the Atlantic coast). This SMU thing is nonsense, they will probably end up with the PAC schools.
A state with 29MM people that added the equivalent of nearly 3 entire CTs in 20 years. A state that is madly in love with football at the HS level. SMU might not happen for many reasons, but there is no denying it is on the table. Now it might get kicked off the table today after this ACC meeting, but for this week it has been a thing.
Which part?
