What was the ACC thinking?

[intlzncster]

In my opinion the ACC is the best all around athletic conference in the most visible sports but it could surely be debated.

You think so? I think the B1G is a good step ahead of them. In football, it's not remotely close. And while ACC basketball is ahead, it's not by as large of a margin. On the East Coast, we do get more ACC bball coverage of course.

ACC BBall is largely just a two team conference with an annually interchanging above average group sitting 3-5. I mean, they added Pitt, Cuse, and BC, all of whom have mostly floundered since. Only Louisville has performed as expected.

 

[JeepCSC]

The B10's big claim to fame is attendance, not performance. They are fairly middle-of-the road when it comes to winning titles in either football or basketball. I think we are looking at 3 titles in both in my lifetime, and I'm 35.

 

[ctchamps]

Wtf kind of thread is this? You really think the ACC gives a damn about the academics? Did you see the crowd last night?? Electric atmosphere in a huge stadium. They have the Heisman winner, are ranked in the top 25 consistently in like all sports meanwhile we almost lose to FCS schools and currently have a patchwork basketball roster and as a university faces the reality that the well is dry in terms of state and conference funding. Ya really wonder why other fan bases think we're delusional?

In 1986 I never thought UConn would have 1 NC in men's and/or women's bb or have a divisions 1 (fbs) football team and find themselves in a major bowl.

Without a doubt the immediate best decision was to take Louisville over UConn for national branding of bb and football. But if Ville ends up in trouble over the stadium debt as @upstater has written in detail, the state of Kentucky will bury that school and with it their sports programs. If that hypothetical situation takes place then the ACC will have made a huge error in their selection.

Let's revisit this issue every decade for 3o to 40 years before we start accusing people of blowing things out of their butt holes.

 

[BUConn10]

You think so? I think the B1G is a good step ahead of them. In football, it's not remotely close. And while ACC basketball is ahead, it's not by as large of a margin. On the East Coast, we do get more ACC bball coverage of course.

ACC BBall is largely just a two team conference with an annually interchanging above average group sitting 3-5. I mean, they added Pitt, Cuse, and BC, all of whom have mostly floundered since. Only Louisville has performed as expected.

The top tier is all that really matters as far as media is concerned. Depth is the for the casual fans watching the Tier 3 games.

 

[Hoophound]

UL sold its soul to the Devil to get where it is. If the ACC requires cheating your way to success for consideration, they could have just told us. If we knew we'd get into the ACC if we had thrown $3,000,000 at Bobby Petrino when he was available, we would have done it. Simple as that, we hire Petrino and win games right away (which we would have with that roster) and we'd have been in.

KO won the national title in year two. If we were in the ACC and won that title, we would've been competing head to head with UK for recruits from then on. KO would be a top 1-3 recruiter with the ACC or B1G behind him.

 

[A10 fan]

The ACC made the mistake by adding PITT instead of UConn. Not Louisville

It basically shows you how unimportant basketball really is. BC, Pitt, and Cuse got in because they've been playing football with the big boys for over 100 years. They were an easier sell to Clemson, and FSU than UConn was. Sure, BC, and Cuse have been terrible lately, and Pitt has been decent, but nothing special, but those schools have have had good runs during the lifetime of the people making the decisions. When they were selling Pitt to the football schools, they can point out Tony Dorsett, Mike Ditka, Dan Marino, and Rickey Jackson, all of whom have busts in Canton, as well as current guys like Larry Fitzgerald, and Aaron Donald, who might have them in the future. It says football is important at Pitt, even if they're not always great at it. UConn can't compete with that. They weren't willing to gamble on a program with no real history. Syracuse has Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, and Donovan McNabb. BC had Doug Flutie. Ancient history yes, but ancient history trumps no history. If basketball was really important, UConn would have gotten a gold plated invitation.

 

[Pudge]

The funny thing about the conference comparable ... is the criteria for evaluation is so frigging odd and fundamentally divergent. John Swofford v Jim Delany just valued far different visions; and their Presidents. Rutgers would be the Island if the ACC formula ruled each of the Power conferences. Swofford et al valued the late 1950s Syracuse and CarrierDome. With a little vision - imho - UConn could be Oregon strong. But noooooo ....

 

[CL82]

It basically shows you how unimportant basketball really is. BC, Pitt, and Cuse got in because they've been playing football with the big boys for over 100 years. They were an easier sell to Clemson, and FSU than UConn was. Sure, BC, and Cuse have been terrible lately, and Pitt has been decent, but nothing special, but those schools have have had good runs during the lifetime of the people making the decisions. When they were selling Pitt to the football schools, they can point out Tony Dorsett, Mike Ditka, Dan Marino, and Rickey Jackson, all of whom have busts in Canton, as well as current guys like Larry Fitzgerald, and Aaron Donald, who might have them in the future. It says football is important at Pitt, even if they're not always great at it. UConn can't compete with that. They weren't willing to gamble on a program with no real history. Syracuse has Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, and Donovan McNabb. BC had Doug Flutie. Ancient history yes, but ancient history trumps no history. If basketball was really important, UConn would have gotten a gold plated invitation.

A-10? Lol.
Nuff said.

 

[upstater]

The B10's big claim to fame is attendance, not performance. They are fairly middle-of-the road when it comes to winning titles in either football or basketball. I think we are looking at 3 titles in both in my lifetime, and I'm 35.

If you include Penn State and Nebraska, there are more. ACC doesn't have the balance of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska. Miami, Fla., Florida St and Clemson are the comps, but they haven't had that level of success. Well, not in my lifetime anyway, since 1968.

 

[upstater]

It basically shows you how unimportant basketball really is. BC, Pitt, and Cuse got in because they've been playing football with the big boys for over 100 years. They were an easier sell to Clemson, and FSU than UConn was. Sure, BC, and Cuse have been terrible lately, and Pitt has been decent, but nothing special, but those schools have have had good runs during the lifetime of the people making the decisions. When they were selling Pitt to the football schools, they can point out Tony Dorsett, Mike Ditka, Dan Marino, and Rickey Jackson, all of whom have busts in Canton, as well as current guys like Larry Fitzgerald, and Aaron Donald, who might have them in the future. It says football is important at Pitt, even if they're not always great at it. UConn can't compete with that. They weren't willing to gamble on a program with no real history. Syracuse has Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, and Donovan McNabb. BC had Doug Flutie. Ancient history yes, but ancient history trumps no history. If basketball was really important, UConn would have gotten a gold plated invitation.

Then explain why UConn was the first choice over Pitt.

 

[JeepCSC]

If you include Penn State and Nebraska, there are more. ACC doesn't have the balance of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska. Miami, Fla., Florida St and Clemson are the comps, but they haven't had that level of success. Well, not in my lifetime anyway, since 1968.

If you add Penn State and Nebraska (and Miami), you get 6 outright titles for the B10 and 8 for the ACC. Also half titles for Nebraska/Michigan (1997), Miami (1991), and Georgia Tech (1990) And Clemson won the year before I was born (1981).

Only the SEC can match the B10 in football attendance and only the ACC can match the B10 in basketball attendance. But SEC football swamps B10 in titles and ACC does the same in basketball. Attendance (and churning out alumni) is what is at the core of the B10 success story.

 

[Padutch5]

That's sort of my point, though. Those were the two teams that everybody knew had the chance to be nationally relevant even when they weren't. The only other program in the conference with the potential to consistently sit at the big boys table is Miami - everybody else is either geographically wanting or a distant second in their state (Georgia Tech). Sure in any given year their teams can compete top to bottom with everybody, but there is a defined ceiling in place where there isn't for other conferences, meaning that when Clemson and FSU go through their next down cycles, they're essentially going to be the new Big East.

Whereas the other P5's are mostly comprised of large, public state schools, the ACC consists of a lot of smaller schools congregated in smaller areas. The league was founded on tobacco road but obviously four schools in North Carolina isn't the way you draw it up if you're starting from scratch today. Contrast that to the other conferences that have more schools concentrated in fertile recruiting grounds (Texas is the epicenter of the Big 12, California in the Pac 12, Ohio and Michigan in the Big Ten, etc.) and you can see why they have an easier time fetching money in contract negotiations. The ACC is essentially a mish mash of leftover SEC schools and useless northern schools. If they're able to pry Texas and/or Oklahoma from the big 12 obviously that changes things, but I don't think Louisville moves the needle much long term. There is a reason Louisville was on a life raft before the ACC picked them up. Everybody knew they could compete athletically but in reality they're not much different than Houston or Memphis. They were the better of bad options the last time realignment came up - what I'll never understand is how Pitt, BC, and Syracuse ended up there before us.

Why did the end up there before us? Simple. It's spelled Blumenthal.

 

[upstater]

If you add Penn State and Nebraska (and Miami), you get 6 outright titles for the B10 and 8 for the ACC. Also half titles for Nebraska/Michigan (1997), Miami (1991), and Georgia Tech (1990) And Clemson won the year before I was born (1981).

Only the SEC can match the B10 in football attendance and only the ACC can match the B10 in basketball attendance. But SEC football swamps B10 in titles and ACC does the same in basketball. Attendance (and churning out alumni) is what is at the core of the B10 success story.

I got 12-11 B10 over ACC since 1968... they have been close for sure. But the B1G has more of the powerhouse teams. None of them can be considered a Georgia Tech once in a blue moon type. All have multiple titles. And actually, Clemson is like GT too in the sense they just experienced championship success once in half a century. But I acknowledge it is a great football school.

The ACC has always had the problem in football that it is top heavy. The B11G with Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State is much deeper.

I'd also point out that B1G teams went through very weird runs in which multiple teams went undefeated without titles. Penn State did this four times since 1968, with the last one being 1994. It also happened at least once in that period to Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State.

This is why I'd put the B1G ahead in football, but definitely not in basketball.

 

[JeepCSC]

Looking at it, to get 12 Big 10 titles you must have given them 2 titles in 1997 and 2 in 1970. I mean in a thought experiment where we are retroactively gifting titles to conferences, we are already playing loosely with facts, but that may be a bit much. And we can't dog Clemson for going 30+ years between titles while sparing Michigan, a team with only a split title to their name this side of the Korean War.

All that said, I think the B10 is collectively above the ACC in terms of football, if only slightly. They get the nod because of fanbase size and depth of conference. They don't get it because they are amazing at winning titles in any measurable way in recent history. They are fine at it. Mostly Ohio State though. Which is okay, as most conferences not named SEC have one team doing the heavy-lifting.

 

[upstater]

Looking at it, to get 12 Big 10 titles you must have given them 2 titles in 1997 and 2 in 1970. I mean in a thought experiment where we are retroactively gifting titles to conferences, we are already playing loosely with facts, but that may be a bit much. And we can't dog Clemson for going 30+ years between titles while sparing Michigan, a team with only a split title to their name this side of the Korean War.

All that said, I think the B10 is collectively above the ACC in terms of football, if only slightly. They get the nod because of fanbase size and depth of conference. They don't get it because they are amazing at winning titles in any measurable way in recent history. They are fine at it. Mostly Ohio State though. Which is okay, as most conferences not named SEC have one team doing the heavy-lifting.

I honestly just followed this:

• Teams listed in bold reflect the NCAA's designation as "Consensus National Champions" by virtue of their selection from 1950 onward by one or more selectors from Associated Press, United Press/UPI, Football Writers Association of America, NFF/College Football Hall of Fame, and USA Today.

At this link: College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS - Wikipedia

The NCAA championships were always mythical because at times, the AP was different from UPI (which doesn't even exist anymore) or the Football Writers. The NCAA recognized all of these. Heck, Penn State has the 1994 year up as a national champion because they were recognized by a couple polls.

But I didn't include 1994 PSU because the NCAA doesn't recognize it (even though it should!).

 

[champs99and04]

4 and 5-star recruits from 2014-2017 using Rivals:

Ohio State- 64
Michigan- 48
Penn State- 34
Michigan State- 29
Nebraska- 21
Maryland- 18
Wisconsin- 16
Illinois- 5
Northwestern- 5
Rutgers- 4
Iowa- 3
Minnesota- 3
Indiana- 2
Purdue- 1



FSU- 62
Clemson- 42
Miami- 33
UNC- 22
VPI- 22
Pittsburgh- 14
Louisville- 12
NC State- 12
Duke- 7
Georgia Tech- 6
Virginia- 6
Boston College- 3
Wake Forest- 2
Syracuse- 1



USC- 62
UCLA- 44
Stanford- 33
Oregon- 27
Arizona State- 23
Washington- 21
California- 15
Arizona- 10
Oregon State- 4
Washington State- 4


It all looks fairly similar however you slice it. You can nitpick I'm sure, but the fact is that all 3 conferences have defined tiers that roughly correspond to one another.

Props to you for doing this research. So the numbers look like this:

ACC - 232 total, 16.6 per team

PAC-12 - 243 total, 20.2 per team

Big Ten - 253 total, 18.1 per team

Overall, they're about what I expected - the ACC is slightly behind the other power conferences, with the gap being manageable but not entirely insignificant. I'm not under the illusion that the league isn't competitive. It's a power conference for a reason and at first glance the hierarchy seems to align with the norm. Swap teams like Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, UNC, and Louisville for whatever middle class exists for other conferences and I don't think much changes in the grand scheme.

The difference between the ACC and other conferences still lies, though, in the power structure. At first glance it isn't particularly noteworthy - the difference between the upper class of the ACC and Big Ten/PAC 12 is about proportional to the overall numbers. What's different is the geography. The talent is distributed from south to north in a way that is almost entirely chronological, with the private schools predictably bringing up the rear. When Clemson, Florida State, and Miami are on, that's fine. But I don't know that they can cycle through reigns of dominance like the other conferences can and I'm not sure they can survive Florida State going in the tank the way the Big Ten navigated Michigan's struggles or the PAC-12 persisted through USC's slump. They have programs like Washington, Cal, Oregon, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Nebraska waiting in the wings to re-claim the torch in the event that the traditional powers stumble. That's the reason the ACC was on life support when they added - to get back to the point of the thread - Louisville. They are geographically in no man's land when compared to the other power conferences in the same way the Big East used to be. That might not matter if the Big 12 dissolves and they can poach them and add Notre Dame, but for now they're still a weird hybrid conference that doesn't really make any sense at all and has been able to hide behind a couple programs.

 

[JeepCSC]

I don't know what you mean by geographically in no man's land. Florida, Georgia, SC, NC, and Virginia account for basically 30% of all D1 recruits in the nation. The core B10 recruiting area of Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Indiana account for less than half that, roughly what Florida produces on its own. And obviously the disparity is only growing.

And when FSU struggles, Miami, Clemson, and VPI are a stronger threesome than whatever the Pac trots out outside USC. It's probably not stronger than what the B10 could field as far as secondary programs, though again, Clemson has played for more titles in the last two years (2) than any non-Ohio State B10 team has played for in the BCS/playoff era (0). The biggest difference between the B10 and the Pac/ACC is that the third tier of the B10 (basically the top of the B10 West) is stronger than UNC, Louisville, Cal, Arizona State, whatever.

What the ACC can't have happen is mediocre coaches and past-their-prime legends at their top 5 or so programs, which is what did happen last decade. No conference can truly survive that, but the ACC was particularly hit hard because they don't have the 100,000 fan bases which will watch a loss to App State and come back for more the next weekend.

 

[noeynox]

To be honest Louisvilles basketball and football program are in way better positions than Uconns. Light years in football

Is this post even real? It's the difference between being in a p5 league and not being in one.

 

[FartMan69]

Is this post even real? It's the difference between being in a p5 league and not being in one.

And one having both a consistent top 25 football and basketball programs. If you don't think our programs are in trouble than I don't know what to tell you.

 

[ctchamps]

In 1986 I never thought UConn would have 1 NC in men's and/or women's bb or have a divisions 1 (fbs) football team and find themselves in a major bowl.

Without a doubt the immediate best decision was to take Louisville over UConn for national branding of bb and football. But if Ville ends up in trouble over the stadium debt as @upstater has written in detail, the state of Kentucky will bury that school and with it their sports programs. If that hypothetical situation takes place then the ACC will have made a huge error in their selection.

Let's revisit this issue every decade for 3o to 40 years before we start accusing people of blowing things out of their butt holes.

So a decade has passed by and dot, dot, dot.

 

[Paesano]

Is the ACC still thanking their lucky stars?

 

[UCDaveD]

The ACC is thanking their lucky stars every night that they took Louisville over us.

FAKE NEWS! I NEVER SAID THIS!

 

[ctchamps]

FAKE NEWS! I NEVER SAID THIS!

 

[UConn990411]

They are regularly ranked in football now with the conference bump and just produced a Heisman Trophy winner. As far as the ACC is concerned, they hit a grand slam and could not have made a better financial move for their conference's future, as tough as it is to swallow for UConn.

Lol.

 

[BugsyCT]

The ACC is thanking their lucky stars every night that they took Louisville over us.

FAKE NEWS! I NEVER SAID THIS!

Boneyard jinx at work?