• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

I agree that the money from academic endeavors is not generally mixed with the sports money. However they are both parts of the whole financial entity that encompasses a university. If a university has a lot of money coming in from academic sources and have a large endowment, they may feel more comfortable and able to supplement or subsidize athletics for the positive publicity and other benefits. I think it is interesting that 2 of the 3 lowest endowments in the ACC are #15 FSU and #13 Clemson at 0.89 and 1.01 billion respectively (WFU is middle of the pack at 1.86 B). I suspect that university presidents are more anxious about their athletic programs when a larger percentage of the institution's income comes from athletics. Notre Dame's endowment at 18 billion (20 times FSU's endowment) is about to be eclipsed by Stanford's 36 billion.
 
Pilchard said:
So, four schools opposed the initial plan to add Cal & Stanford (and possibly SMU). Those four schools are: FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC State.

The speculated rationale for the no votes were:

  • FSU wants out of the ACC, and one way (perhaps the only way) for FSU to leave the ACC and not lose a ton of money via GOR is for the ACC to dissolve. By adding three schools with no other options, it becomes less likely that ACC will dissolve before 2036. So, FSU is never supporting adding members to the ACC.
  • While not as clear, it appears, at a minimum, Clemson wants to keep its options open, and based on the rationale above, adding those three schools would limit Clemson's options until 2036
  • Also, while not as clear (as FSU is run by idiots revealing their hand on every deal), UNC may have the same thinking as Clemson, and also, just not want to further water-down the conference by adding members from different timezones, as it appears that there are still decision-makers at UNC that still romanticize about the ACC before expansion; simply stated, they liked it better when the ACC was essentially a North Carolina-based conference, and they were the big dog (that's never going to happen if they join another conference).
  • NC State, who are probably upset at FSU for challenging the Pack as to the most delusional fan-base, seem to think that they are tethered to UNC, and that if UNC does get an offer from the Big 10 or SEC, they would be part of the package.... don't think the Pack should hold their breath while waiting for an SEC or Big 10 offer.
So, as poorly run as many believe the ACC are, the conference is not dumb enough to go through another vote on expansion without believing that at least one of those four has had a change of heart. Clear that its not FSU, as those dopes continue to grasp to the pipe dream that the SEC is on the verge of inviting them, and it's the ACC affiliation that holding the Noles back. Keep thinking that Drew Weatherford... So, that means that Clemson, UNC or NC State has changed its mind. Since State is apparently just letting UNC decide things, it would seem like either Clemson or UNC (or both) are now open to ACC expansion. For UNC or Clemson, I would not think its just the extra money that they might get if SMU, Stanford and Cal agree to no share for an extra couple of years. Wouldn't think a call by George Bush or Condeleeza Rice would be enough either. Maybe the SEC and Big 10 made it clear that they aren't adding anytime soon. Would love to know the machinations.
Click to expand...
I would think UNC is torn between being the heart of the Acc with enough money to be a good as they can plausibly be; knowing if they leave they rip the heart out of the conference; and delusions of Big 10 money and mediocracy, or SEC money and irrelevance.

I don't think UNC wants to kill the Acc on the way to their delusions. They can leave later, not now. They don't believe they are $30 million short of domination. They know they may ultimately stick with the Acc. So strengthening the Acc is good as long as it doesn't create new insurmountable obstacles to their future.

Seems like there's an arrangement there. Clemson can use more money and path to the final four.

Maybe we should just cut FSUs distribution and beef up all the rest of us.
 
BlackjackMc said:
The presidents of fifteen ACC universities must decide if Stanford, Cal and SMU are worthy of membership into the ACC. Forget football and money for a moment and ask yourself if each of those schools would enhance the academic reputation of the conference. SMU (#72) might be questionable. For most academics (presidents) it would be a privilege to sit at the same table with Stanford (#3) and California (#20) on a regular basis.

This would also give the ACC seven universities ranked in the Top 30. Combined, the rest of the Power conference schools have six. ACC with nine Top 50 schools to eleven for the rest. It's 17 Top 75 schools for the ACC to 18 for the all others combined.

What difference does that make? If the B1G and SEC decide to go it alone in a power play, a conference composed of top academic schools is already formed. Add Northwestern (#10) and Vanderbilt (#13) if they are thrown to the curb or decide they have more in common with an academic conference. A media package for a conference of this nature is not out of the question. I suspect the alumni of this group of schools could make it happen.

Keep in mind, it's the university presidents that vote on these matters. At present it's all about money. At some point in the future the role of education could return as a priority.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is cobbling on a Plan B, for escapees or for Premier League. Might as well pre-stage our future partners. Even if just in like an allied Pacific subsidiary.
 
DemonDeke said:
I would think UNC is torn between being the heart of the Acc with enough money to be a good as they can plausibly be; knowing if they leave they rip the heart out of the conference; and delusions of Big 10 money and mediocracy, or SEC money and irrelevance.

I don't think UNC wants to kill the Acc on the way to their delusions. They can leave later, not now. They don't believe they are $30 million short of domination. They know they may ultimately stick with the Acc. So strengthening the Acc is good as long as it doesn't create new insurmountable obstacles to their future.

Seems like there's an arrangement there. Clemson can use more money and path to the final four.

Maybe we should just cut FSUs distribution and beef up all the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I think you are overestimating the nostalgic view that any school has about the ACC. If any school, including Wake, could cut a great long term deal they’d leave in a heartbeat with nary a thought about tearing the heart out of the ACC.
 
deacdixieboy said:
There are a few of us who certainly do. Everyone in academia isn’t a sports hater.
Click to expand...

??

Of course not, but that’s not who we’re talking about. We’re talking about the decision makers. And if you think the conference alignment discussion of the last decade has been shaped by anything other than football money, I just can’t see the evidence for it. All you hear about ad nauseum is media rights.

As Wake Foresters we all want academic prestige to be part of it, and we hope that the ACC powers that be have that in their minds. But it’s a sparrow in a hurricane. There is no serious discussion about reworking the conference so it will be in a better position to get academic grants. There simply isn’t.

So, once again, that’s why I was addressing the fact that someone brought that up. It’s a non-starter. No one is talking about academic grant money, and even if schools did qualify for a better academic grant money due to their new conference partners, it’s going into different coffers than the football money anyway.
 
DeacDaddy said:
??

Of course not, but that’s not who we’re talking about. We’re talking about the decision makers. And if you think the conference alignment discussion of the last decade has been shaped by anything other than football money, I just can’t see the evidence for it. All you hear about ad nauseum is media rights.

As Wake Foresters we all want academic prestige to be part of it, and we hope that the ACC powers that be have that in their minds. But it’s a sparrow in a hurricane. There is no serious discussion about reworking the conference so it will be in a better position to get academic grants. There simply isn’t.

So, once again, that’s why I was addressing the fact that someone brought that up. It’s a non-starter. No one is talking about academic grant money, and even if schools did qualify for a better academic grant money due to their new conference partners, it’s going into different coffers than the football money anyway.
Click to expand...
But WF is only a second tier school.
 
Shake said:
Nope Bobby Jones might have been but ended his career way too early. Raymond close to Arnie, with all due respect the gap in skill, brand recognition, admiration and awareness isn’t even worth a conversation….Arnie was and will always be the king. I also know you believe this and just stirring the pot.

You‘re a golfer and a Wake guy…have you lost your mind
Click to expand...
"Admiration" Seems like the most "admired" golfer ever was Dwight Eisenhower--which has not a damn thing to do with who was the best golfer.

I am a Wake alum. But sorry that does not mean I lie about the facts. Palmer's numbers are what they are. They are not in the same stratosphere with Tiger Woods, Bobby Jones, and Walter Hagan.

The next tier of players are Ben Hogan (9), Gary Player (9), and Tom Watson (8).

Arnie is in the tier after with Mickelson, Trevino, Snead, Sarazen and Billy Casper.

I'm an Ole Miss guy too but that doesn't mean I pretend Cary Middlecoff was on par with Jack Nicklaus--even though Middlecoff's numbers were much closer to Palmer than Palmer ever was to Nicklaus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top