|
Replies: 24
| visibility 1
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 42
Joined: 9/25/18
|
What If?
May 25, 2021, 9:05 AM
|
|
Just wondering opinions on a possible scenario of CU and FSU moving to the SEC should opportunity arise. For fun, if Auburn moved to the east would be Clemson, FSU, Auburn, Ga, Sc, Tenn, Fla, and Ky. Andy would move to the west - Vandy, Ala, TAM, Ark, Mo, MSzu, Miss, LSU. Excitement around FB would be unbelievable - tics at a premium. Would probably help basketball - certainly wouldn't hurt. The Olympic sports would benefit from having 4 opponents within bussing distance. And that extra $20-25 million annually would certainly be nothing to laugh at. Just wondering how ye might feel?
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [67055]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33537
Joined: 12/3/03
|
I will repeat what I said a long while ago. Clemson will
May 25, 2021, 9:11 AM
|
|
NEVER be invited to join the SEC. A very simple reason for this is:
We already are competing with the best the SEC has to offer in recruiting, and on the field. That is even though we will lose several recruits every year that figure they just HAVE to play in the SEC for whatever reason. If that recruiting block was removed, Clemson would dominate recruiting like no one other than Nick Saban. Dabo is the best recruiting closer in the college game, even though the competition in the ACC gives him no help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64755]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89076
Joined: 3/27/01
|
You do realize...
May 25, 2021, 9:21 AM
|
|
the ACC has an exit fee or penalty of roughly $52 million?
That said, while the fee could be negotiated or mediated for a lesser amount (e.g., Maryland in 2014), Maryland's exit fee was still upwards of $30 million.
While it's can be fun to speculate, the exit fee makes conference expansion, at least as it pertains to other leagues selecting ACC schools, highly unlikely IMO.
Furthermore, I'm not sure uof6c would ever support a recommendation for Clemson to join the $EC. Yammering about their conference affiliation is pretty much all they've got even though they've historically contributed very little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 49
Joined: 5/25/21
|
Re: You do realize...
May 25, 2021, 11:14 AM
|
|
Didn't really it was that high.. yeesh..
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5428
Joined: 9/12/04
|
In case you hadn't noticed...
May 25, 2021, 9:27 AM
|
|
Conference expansions and re-shuffling are more a function of gaining TV markets than anything else - it's all about the dollars... Very little would be gained by way of national TV market share if the SEC added Clemson. The SEC already owns a sizeable share of the small South Carolina TV market. Getting the whole of SC TV market would not bring in as much as them expanding into a whole new untapped market like they did in Texas with the addition of Texas A&M. So no... Clemson will not be leaving the ACC and joining the SEC in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: What If?
May 25, 2021, 9:27 AM
|
|
Heck naw.
We ain't the coots and any decision they make you know it to be the wrong one.
The SEC was smart. Of all the "new" teams the adopted since 1992, have been mid/tier or basement dwellers. Combined, the "expansion teams" have exactly 2 conference titles from a league that still exists. And the coots one 1/2 of that claim (TAM has the other Big12 title). That means, the most recent conference title of those four teams is 1998. Mizzou and the coots last title was 69, Arky's was Ken Hatfield 1989 title, and then TAMs 98 run.
Let that sink in.
The SEC does NOT want "more competition". Rather it wants large fanbases with miserable records and expectations that will feed W to their traditional powers. They do not want to pull a B10 or ACC and grab "power programs" like Miami, Nebraska, Ped State only to have them fizzle. The SEC piorneered the idea to grab the sloppy middle/bottom like Rutgers, or Cuse and then feast on the carcass.
----
My issue with the ACC is that we are NOT playing regional rivals. If you mixed up the ACC north/south, then our issue would not be so bad.
South: Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, NC STATE, Wake - North: Duke, VT, UVA, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UofL. When /If ND joins, add them to the North, Drop Duke to the South, and add one more fodder team like Navy to the North since they have a good history with those programs.
One Clemson/FSU/Miami/GT get a strong schedule slate. VT UofL and the others get a easier road to the division title. I can only see uNC and to a lesser extent NC State no liking being bottom tier programs in the division, but hey, they get basketball and when they do get a good team, they get good competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64755]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89076
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I don't understand this ongoing infatuation...
May 25, 2021, 9:37 AM
|
|
with adding Navy to the ACC.
This applies to teams like UCF, USF, UConn, Memphis, ECU, and Cincinnati as well.
Not just no but he!! no !!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [654]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1265
Joined: 7/21/20
|
I hear you on Navy, but AAC teams?
May 25, 2021, 9:53 AM
|
|
Why wouldn't you be OK adding at least some of the competitive teams on your list like UCF, USF, Memphis & Cincinnati? I think they'd be fantastic additions to the league in all sincerity but I'm curious why you wouldn't want them in the ACC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64755]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89076
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Here are my thoughts:
May 25, 2021, 10:46 AM
|
|
UCF - There simply isn’t much of an “it” factor when considering adding UCF to any Power 5 conference. The athletic programs seem to be middle of the road in almost every sport, the athletic budget is tiny for a school its size, and the university in general doesn’t really have the appeal that others do. The school’s academic rank is 176ish which would also make it the lowest in the conference (Louisville says thank you).
USF - USF has a pretty tough history with attendance and overall fan support. USF sports don’t seem particularly big to Tampa or the school itself. I'm also not sure FSU and Miami would support a recommendation to add another huge school from Florida to the league.
Memphis - Memphis isn't currently listed as one of the top 310 schools in the country. It has an endowment that is 1/3 the size of the lowest in the ACC ($200m) and a sports budget smaller than Old Dominion. The only thing Memphis really brings to the table is its basketball tradition and some recent football success. However, the school’s financial assets, average non-revenue sports, and academic reputation are all deal breakers.
Cincinnati - Cincinnati’s national brand isn't much to write home about. In 2019, the school also received under $5 million in athletic related contributions from fans, corporations, and donors. That was second to last in the conference only above USF. The biggest thing they offer is a possible expansion into Ohio and a fairly large media market.
To me, if you going to target some mid-major program, UConn makes the most sense but I'm not a fans of that choice either. While adding UConn would help the conference secure a foothold in the NYC market and revive some old Big East rivalries with Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame but I'm not sure that would be enough to get the Northeast to actually care about the ACC. The basketball history is there, the academic reputation is there, and the athletic revenues are there too. However, the football program is not good. The Huskies haven’t recorded a winning season since 2010 and recruiting has been just as abysmal.
If the ACC is going to expand, add Notre Dame as a full member and then go after Penn State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Here are my thoughts:
May 25, 2021, 11:35 AM
|
|
IF UCONN didn't obliterate their football program, I would agree. back in 2015 I would have agreed. They make less sense now because their football program is so bad. They are about to become Southern UMASS.
I personally would fight ya  over ped state. They are a B10 school - even with their reputation for sexual misconduct. Seriously, is there a B10 East school that does NOT have an issue with sexual predators, abusers, reckless endangerment of student life? While it would be a good match for the ACC, Ped State's rivals are in the B10 moreso than the ACC (save Pitt/Cuse). It might have made more sense when Maryland was in the ACC, not now.
I agree with the ACC expanding, it need to expand with ND and then target another "northern" school. I don't think you could ever get the UNC/Duke/GT and especially UVA ever to consider WVU due to academics. Even VT might be hesitant as their joining was in an attempt to increase both their athletics but especially their academic peers. I think UofL has soured any of those schools from taking a risk on such a low-level academic school. Next up would be Cincy (again, your good points but academics is still an issue as well). Navy is my lurker, but they are football only in the American and would need to do more with their other sports (although what they offer matches). Finally, kinda a dark horse would be... Villanova - IF they ever decided to build past their FCS status. They have won the FCS title and are competitive but that would be a HUGE jump. Georgetown is in a worse spot than Nova. I don't think we can expand our reach to texas for Houston, etc. And gerenally, the "University of a City" isn't a good pick.
At the end of the day, any program we bring in will need some "assistance" either to get their sports up to speed or will need a major overhaul academically. I think increasing sports is easier and increasing non-football is the easist and thus Navy is often my pick. And that should be a selling point to Notre Dame as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64755]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89076
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I have also head some folk mention East Carolina...
May 25, 2021, 12:02 PM
|
|
which is not a recommendation I would support but what about Temple?
Temple football is probably about as good now as it has ever been. The 35 NCAA basketball appearances also would go along well the ACC’s recent theme of adding schools with strong histories in the sport.
The Philly media market is also one of the 10th biggest in the US and that never hurts when it comes to expansion resumes.
The concern is, would their national brand be too weak because they are overshadowed by Villanova.
The school has the size and hometown of a Power 5 program, but leaves a lot to be desired in almost everything except basketball tradition. Also, athletic revenues of sub $40 million for a university of their size would be a problem too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: I have also head some folk mention East Carolina...
May 25, 2021, 12:16 PM
|
|
I quietly love the Pirrrrates as their alums tend to impress me more than some other schools... but they are mostly just a less sober, more belligerent NC State and we already have enough NC schools.
Temple is a consideration and I don't thing their overall athletic program is there as you said. At least with Nova you could make the excuse that they are a Duke-like "basketball only" program. I think that Nova is a much better academic option. Nova slots in with Miami Cuse, BC, Pitt academically (Upper 40s 50 nationally). Thus why I think boosting Nova would be a easier route but still way to much of a lift. Temple ranks significantly behind us academically at 105 and would be ranked 15th of 16 in the ACC(only ahead of UofL)... yup, ranked behind NC State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64755]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89076
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I didn't look but I would not have guessed that.***
May 25, 2021, 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: I don't understand this ongoing infatuation...
May 25, 2021, 9:56 AM
[ in reply to I don't understand this ongoing infatuation... ] |
|
I am always a fan of the service academies. I would consider them our "peer". I would rather have Army of UofL
It would be adding a school back to our regional footprint, Navy has history with ND, Pitt, UVA, etc. While not a powerhouse, they are often decent enough. And besides UCONN (which has aborted their football program) they do have academic standards. The other directional challenged florida/carolina schools + the city schools LACK the academic aspect top be our peers. Plus, when you look at Navy's other programs, they do fit the overarching ACC athletic profile for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [654]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1265
Joined: 7/21/20
|
But that's the opposite?
May 25, 2021, 9:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: What If? ] |
|
The SEC does NOT want "more competition". Rather it wants large fanbases with miserable records and expectations that will feed W to their traditional powers. They do not want to pull a B10 or ACC and grab "power programs" like Miami, Nebraska, Ped State only to have them fizzle. The SEC piorneered the idea to grab the sloppy middle/bottom like Rutgers, or Cuse and then feast on the carcass.
I don't think that seems accurate, though?
For example, we have Syracuse in our league but I don't think the SEC ever targeted them?
Instead, the last two teams they added were Texas A&M and Missouri.
If they wanted to avoid competition I'm not sure they did a great job at all; Missouri won the East twice in its first few years in the league, and Texas A&M nearly won the conference, not to mention beating Alabama, winning the Heisman & more (i.e., rather than "protecting" their blue bloods as suggested above).
I wouldn't exactly call Mizzou a powerhouse, but adding Texas A&M was a legitimate coup in spite of them not always being elite.
At this point it's too late regardless; it would cost US tens of millions of dollars to leave & that's just to the league alone, not to mention the ACC Network penalties. If the SEC Network were generating, say, double the ACC Network does for its member schools then I could understand the possibility better, but if nothing else it's interesting to think about matching up with teams like Auburn every year, especially with our incredible shared history with Auburn itself.
As for regional rivals, do we really have any? I thought the league was trying to create them; Louisville, for example, we play every single year... except last year, but nobody noticed or cared (& we were furious to lose our SEC rival instead).
But adding Notre Dame would be ENORMOUS. I'm all for it. The most-watched game in ACC history wasn't a coincidence, that's for sure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: But that's the opposite?
May 25, 2021, 10:21 AM
|
|
Mizzou and BC are kinda the same. A few divisions titles at the beginning but really, they have not done much since. Both of those divisions were the result of a down division as well and having a decent QB I think. In any case, Mizzou hasn't won a conference title since 69. Even in their best years, they are not "champions".
A&M was/is the second fiddle, second tier of the B12. If anything, they are just like the Coots as having bigger fanbase with a very small trophy case... maybe they are an NC State, etc? Still, the same issue, their "best" years, they only pad a better teams resume.
At the end, not one of the expansion teams have won it all (the SEC title). Their appearance in the SEC Title game is more of a trivia question. Arky has 3 divisions, Mizzou has two, coots 1. So 6 combined since 1992. Even then, their expansion NC claiming teams don't have anything newer than the Eisenhower administration.
Meanwhile, the ACC has had the ACC CG populated by a post 2004 "expansion team" 12 times... add FSU and that jumps to 17. Thus only 16 appearances by "traditional ACC teams" vs 17 by post 1991 expansion teams.
There is no real reason to join the SEC from Clemson's perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [654]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1265
Joined: 7/21/20
|
Re: But that's the opposite?
May 25, 2021, 10:25 AM
|
|
Right, but again, you suggested they added teams to avoid competition and booster their golden child programs is all. It just doesn't seem accurate to compare them to BC & Syracuse, particularly with their competition since joining.
I'm not trying to compare them with Clemson's competitiveness in the same time frame, either; they're not exactly close, but not competitive is something different outright, that's all. TAMU, for example, at least wouldn't be totally unexpected to have one of the richest programs in the country achieve success again like it did when they initially joined the SEC.
Regardless, it's fun to think about playing teams like Auburn every year, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: But that's the opposite?
May 25, 2021, 10:46 AM
|
|
Not one of the programs the SEC added was a "traditional power". Not one has won a title in recent memory. That is now 60+ years. Rather, at best Arky was a better program. TAM was an also-ran always in the shadow. Mizzou has been horrible since 1970. They went 37 years without winning more than 8 games and most of that time was spent below .500. Pinkle save them for a little while but unfortunately his health nixed that revival. God-forbid but SOuth Carolina was doing better than Mizzou during that time. They were grabbed for the StL/KC market as being the only major school in the state. Call them north Arky.
Where does T&AM slot into the SEC west history wise? Below Alabama, LSU, Auburn, (as well as Florida, Georgia, Tenn) alongside Arky, Ol Miss, and above Miss State. Even Kentucky has a more recent claimed national title. So adding a 4th/6th level team to a competitive division is a coup? Mizzou slots in below Florida, Georgia, Tenn, On par with Kentucky, a half step above the Coots and above Vandy. Again, a 4th/5th level team. They have slotted in teams that historically would be 7/8th (Arky), 8/9th (TAM), 12th Mizzou, 13th Coots based on historical accomplishments. That isn't adding competition, that is adding scheduling fodder for their programs with more championship demands.
If you look at it that way, they are adding to the middle/bottom. At best, TAM is like Auburn's opposite. Auburn seems to have the highest ceiling and floor. TAM while rarely never having a losing season also even more rarely wins a conference or anything like that so. Consistently mediocre, occasionally excellent, never the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5075]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1178
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: What If?
May 25, 2021, 9:31 AM
|
|
You don't join the mafia just because the pay is good...I would not want to join a league that has so many issues with player discipline and program credibility. Is there anyone that does not believe the recent high school story of the bullpups paying for their recruits?
I do not believe that there would be any positive, long term results from us going to that fringe conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [654]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1265
Joined: 7/21/20
|
Re: What If?
May 25, 2021, 9:51 AM
|
|
I dunno; it's not like our league hasn't been plagued with similar issues, right? From UNC cheating in the classroom to Miami & FSU scandals, etc.? I hear you, but even if all the SEC conspiracies are true we still have plenty of dirty laundry here in the ACC, certainly not enough to justify being the sole reason to stay (we've got better ones, that's for sure).
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5075]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1178
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: What If?
May 25, 2021, 12:25 PM
|
|
The football "factory" mindset of the SEC is one of the problems I am talking about....the "throw away players not producing" mentality is one of the biggest problems in SEC that I see as roadblock. Another is the lower academic standards of the football players,
Message was edited by: JPRICH Top Paw®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4039
Joined: 9/26/00
|
A little known fact about leaving conferences
May 25, 2021, 9:37 AM
|
|
every school in the conference you're wanting to join must vote "yes" to you joining. It has to be unanimous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58301]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39937
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Doormat coots will do as they are told by Birmingham.***
May 25, 2021, 1:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [654]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1265
Joined: 7/21/20
|
Power 5 structure is still so silly
May 25, 2021, 9:38 AM
|
|
I don't think we'll ever move to the SEC because of the nature of basketball rather than football.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if some shift in the "power 5" thing happens for the first time in our lifetime with a new playoff format in the near future. After all, more AAC teams have been ranked more often than the ACC since the inception of the CFP Committee & yet they are treated as being uncompetitive or ignored for legitimate playoff contention.
The ACC, meanwhile, would be in enormous trouble without Clemson, particularly with the rise of the still relatively new ACC Network & its associated revenue.
Look, the ACC is down right now. It's bad. I keep expecting it to get better even on accident every season, but the reality is the ACC Network money is essentially a free & massive, multi-million dollar bonus to each member school every single year.
It HAS to start paying dividends; $22+ million a year isn't insignificant, & I think it's really only a question of time before teams like FSU, UNC & Miami become more competitive. Elite? Probably not.
But what Dabo did when he got here (including before becoming head coach) was to incite Clemson donors to open their checkbooks & give money to Clemson like never before, resulting in new facilities ranked as some of the best in the sport. We take it for granted now by nature but this was a legitimate coup by Coach Swinney.
Now other ACC schools are getting money to do that from the network revenue & it's not hard to see it having a positive & inescapable result.
IMO, it's simply a question of time. I can't believe it's taking this long, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 5 years or so we have another legitimate title contender in the league.
I would LOVE to play Auburn every year, though. I will always celebrate our history with them & I think it's oddly largely forgotten (or never learned?) around here.
Fun stuff to think about---thanks for that, Rambotiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5075]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1178
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Power 5 structure is still so silly
May 25, 2021, 1:04 PM
|
|
Obviously, you get your info from a coot site! You said: "After all, more AAC teams have been ranked more often than the ACC since the inception of the CFP Committee & yet they are treated as being uncompetitive or ignored for legitimate playoff contention."
With quick research, in 2014, FSU, Gatech, and Duke were in the top 25 AP poll, week 13, and no AAC teams.
In 2015, Clemson, UNC, and FSU, were in it, while Houston and Navy from AAC
in 2016, Clemson, Louisville, FSU, with only Houston in AAC
in 2017, Clemson, Miami, Va tech, with UCF, Memphis and USF from AAC
in 2018, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, with UCF from AAC
in 2019, Clemson, Va tech, with Cincy, Memphis and SMU from AAC
in 2020, Clemson, ND, Miami, with Cincy and Tulsa
That is a total of 20 ACC schools ranked in the AP thirteenth week poll during the CFP Era, versus 13 for the AAC. And most of those were higher ranked than the AAC teams...so your argument is invalid and very misleading!
There were 11 different ACC teams ranked during the CFP era. There were 8 from the AAC, even if you tried to say you meant different teams, it still would not be true. And the only year that the AAC had more teams ranked than the ACC was 2019!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 24
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
