There's gotta be something going on internally within the ACC. There's gotta be something we don't know. Stanford, Cal, SMU??????
Replacements for FSU, Clemson and Miami.
There's gotta be something going on internally within the ACC. There's gotta be something we don't know. Stanford, Cal, SMU??????
This. I suggested when the FSU/Clemson moaning anout dollars started that UConn approach the ACC and offer to take half a share so they could give more money to quiet them down. I was told UConn should never agree to such a thing. SMU seems to be making this play, and it will probably work for them. You need forward thinking.They might get told that they are getting their off ramp from the ACC by X date in exchange for cooperation....or ESPN will take SMU pro-rata share and give it to the ACC's new "performance" pot used to reward winning programs.
So if hypothetically the governor of the State showed up at a UConn football practice today, expressed his support for the program and the athletic department, and specifically declared on the record that the athletics deficit was not a major concern, would that be enough to satisfy the "it's not sustainable" crowd here?
Why can't he be all three?No, because it’s meaningless.
We’re operating under a directive to shrink the department’s deficit, so he’s either stupid, dishonest or a politician telling you what he thinks you want to hear.
Put me down for A.No, because it’s meaningless.
We’re operating under a directive to shrink the department’s deficit, so he’s either stupid, dishonest or a politician telling you what he thinks you want to hear.
No, because it’s meaningless.
We’re operating under a directive to shrink the department’s deficit, so he’s either stupid, dishonest or a politician telling you what he thinks you want to hear.
Every Commitment by a politician is subject to change when the wind shifts . What he really means is coming off a NC were good for a year.So if hypothetically the governor of the State showed up at a UConn football practice today, expressed his support for the program and the athletic department, and specifically declared on the record that the athletics deficit was not a major concern, would that be enough to satisfy the "it's not sustainable" crowd here?
I Would say in this case that your three possibilities are not mutually exclusive.No, because it’s meaningless.
We’re operating under a directive to shrink the department’s deficit, so he’s either stupid, dishonest or a politician telling you what he thinks you want to hear.
Duke< StanfordLet’s see if their brand remains strong 14 years after coach k.
"Major programs"?Of course SDSU would be the one to lead this. They aren't making any friends, that's for sure! Between SDSU causing trouble in the MW, Arizona State and Utah looking down at the Big 12, and FSU more or less with the finger on the trigger to leave the ACC, there is lots of public drama going on in college sports!
But we lack a long history in football and our program has been terrible for many years. Leaving the AAC killed our football program and our image.It’s not just bad enough where west coast teams and SMU are being talked about over us in an east coast league. It’s that we aren’t even being mentioned as a possibility when we are in the footprint, just won a natty, and had a football coach of the year candidate who has coached in a P5 league and the NFL. And the network impacting the decision is within our borders. You can’t make it up.
Mike Aresco or his kicker/punter grand kid, which are you?But we lack a long history in football and our program has been terrible for many years. Leaving the AAC killed our football program and our image.
No. He's there for only a few years, and at some point, every governor is going to have to answer, are the tuition increases sustainable?So if hypothetically the governor of the State showed up at a UConn football practice today, expressed his support for the program and the athletic department, and specifically declared on the record that the athletics deficit was not a major concern, would that be enough to satisfy the "it's not sustainable" crowd here?
BCU is not as bad as you claim. They're only terrible now. In the 80s they were pretty good. Nor am I certain you'll be kicked out of the ACC. It's probable, but not at all assured. Although I do give you guys credit: you gave UConn a pretty tough game last year.But we lack a long history in football and our program has been terrible for many years. Leaving the ACC killed our football program and our image.
You realize the 80’s were 35 years ago.BCU is not as bad as you claim. They're only terrible now. In the 80s they were pretty good. Nor am I certain you'll be kicked out of the ACC. It's probable, but not at all assured. Although I do give you guys credit: you gave UConn a pretty tough game last year.
???They wanted to shed Oregon State and Washington State. Those two schools were arguably the two least valuable remaining properties in the P5, and like we've seen so many other times in realignment, survival came down to whichever league had the least amount of dead weight. This is how the Big 12 outlived the PAC-12 and why it will probably outlive the ACC despite having lesser brands on the whole.
Yes, but you haven't seen a cereal named after a college football player since then, have you?You realize the 80’s were 35 years ago.
Texas is the best state for football, certainly, but at some point, that well is going to run dry.Ugh, literally the landing space in between.....but a whole new state for ACCN and recruiting. I hate to say it....but it sounds feasible.
Had to Google it…. Says they came out in 1998. Nothing to do with BC.Yes, but you haven't seen a cereal named after a college football player since then, have you?