Why the ACC took Louisville

[Seaa Blue]

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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?’ ’’

Was that comment in the same story where Defilippo said he didn't want a school in his backyard?

 

[Fishy]

Yup.

 

[Cleanface]

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

This little analogy hurts my brain, but I'll play along...

You mean, the smart girls with rich parents, right??

 

[billybud]

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.

 

[billybud]

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.

 

[UConnJim]

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.

Unfortunately, the ACC woke up late to this trend after they sold all of their media rights to ESPN and after they added 3 private schools and 2 second fiddle public universities (plus VT and partial ND) to their conference. (Big 12 schools not named Texas are at risk with the conference network trend.)

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.

 

[whaler11]

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.

 

[pj]

I left out rich smart girls....even if they look like dray horses.

If entry to the B1G is permanent, then the B1G is marrying not one woman, but a whole lineage. The dray horse, given better nourishment, could have a supermodel daughter. Rutgers could overtake FSU.

 

[pj]

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.

Exactly. The fact that the ACC took Louisville over UConn suggests that they didn't really expect or believe in the possibility of an ACCN at the time. If they are making goo-goo eyes at it now, it is only out of jealousy at the B1G/SEC riches, and with a threat that top teams might leave for those conferences.

 

[Hoophound]

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.

 

[Kolumbo]

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.

Spot on about the ACC.
This is why I hate the usage of "realignment." Realignment is what MLB does because MLB is the single entity. College football consists of 5 separate greedy entities all out pillaging. Swapping WVU and L-ville would be realigning, but what the ACC has done has nothing to do with realignment.

 

[clmssun]

The ACC's present issues boil down to decisions made LONG ago:
1) 4 schools in the state of North Carolina
1a) The inclusion of Wake Forest
2) NOT adding Penn State in 1990*

* I don't believe there was any real discussion or possibility of Penn State to the ACC -- maybe Penn State to Big East, but not to ACC -- in 1990. Of course in the early 1990s, the brilliant powerful SEC added South Carolina and Arkansas -- Do those sound like s e xy markets?

The ACC HAS executed a strategic vision over the last 20 years, but all their recent moves cannot fix the fundamental problems from the past:
1) Adding Florida State -- duh! (Yet who knew FSU would have some very subpar years from 2003-2012?)
2) Adding Miami was very smart -- who knew that Miami would implode?
3) Adding Virginia Tech was a solid move... but it was "unfortunate" they were the standard bearers for most of the '00s due to FSU and Miami doldrums.
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.
5) Adding Pittsburgh and Syracuse: While not the s e x iest moves, they WERE new territory, Syracuse is the only P5 in New York State, and they served to "complete the footprint"... until Maryland left. (I also believe BC and Pitt were Notre Dame-bait.)
6) Adding Notre Dame as 5/8 football member: A lot of risk, a lot of potential reward. Not a "conservative" move.
7) Louisville -- the subject of this thread.

Losing Maryland hurts, no argument there.
Rutgers is a great financial addition for B1G already having BTN. I think the notion that Rutgers would have helped start an ACC network is preposterous.
I would rather have Louisville and Pittsburgh than West Virginia. I don't see WVU as a lifeboat. If the Big XII implodes, WVU will be in the ACC anyway.
I would rather have UConn than BC, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Louisville... but I am biased But UConn is still available...

 

[pj]

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.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

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.

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.

 

[Kolumbo]

BC. Happened to stumble upon this. The article itself is amusing. The comments are even further out there.
http://www.bcinterruption.com/bosto...07/-it-time-to-play-uconn-huskies-in-football

 

[RegisteredUconn]

...
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.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

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.

Ding! Ding!! Ding!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

 

[kyleslamb]

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!"

 

[whaler11]

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'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.

 

[whaler11]

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 agreed Ville and WVU would have been a better move than Syracuse and Pitt. But they ended up w Louisville and it's not like WVU is some kind of game changer.

 

[kyleslamb]

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.

Respectfully, that's not a healthy long term position.

Retail sales is a great example. There are managers who salivate over adding some slick salespeople. There are folks that can sell ice to an Eskimo. However, there are some of those very same salesmen that sometimes lie, or, at very least, omit some important points about the products. These people sometimes are combative with customers and coworkers.

Like sales, this isn't just about making the sale, it's about keeping sales long term. What happens if Louisville goes back into a non-dominant cycle? Then you have a southern school that is not culturally like the other ACC folks who also no longer would have the dominant major revenue sports to carry the league.

Any organization needs cohesiveness to survive. You can't just look at the "just sell" mentality. It's really about long term relationships. As I said, this may well end up going well for the ACC... but the rationale for why Louisville was added wasn't by itself wise.

 

[CL82]

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.

Ah, the straw man predictably raises it's ugly head. Sigh, no Whaler I'm not proposing that.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

So a community college that is the #2 school in a small, poor market wins a game over a has-been Miami program, and suddenly adding Louisville was genius? Louisville has good basketball and football programs. They are also only about 300 miles from 8 or 9 other P5 programs, including some of the most storied programs in sports. New England, New York and New Jersey, one of the richest and most densely populated areas in the country, has 3 p5 schools, all of whom suck in football and two of whom suck in basketball. If this was a question of value to the conference, there was only one answer, UConn. We got outsold.

 

[billybud]

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!"

LOL....I have maintained that it was Delaney who panicked and jumped to Maryland and Rutgers when the ACC picked up Notre Dame for scheduled games. Big Ten insiders have said as much. (and yes, we have covered this before and I provided links).

Louisville is a good add....Rutgers? Big Tenners and Rutgers folks will sing the praises....some of us non Big Ten folks will go.... Meh.

It is the nature of the beast.

I do hate what expansion has done to the Big Ten....Wisconsin doesn't play Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, nor Penn State....and as a guy who also went to Wisconsin as well as FSU....I hate to see that.