Reminiscing About ACC Expansion

Memories can be a funny thing. I suspect that the trivial items that stick in our brains are somehow related to our individual personality. Some people tend to think (and remember) the best….and others the worst. Some people are so self-absorbed that they only remember things that directly impact them. Some people have near photographic memory with the ability to recall amazing and trivial details. I’m an engineer, not a psychiatrist or doctor….but I find this subject interesting.

I have always loved sports, but over the years I have developed an extreme distaste for most sports reporters. On this particular incident, I can remember the exact moment when my distaste for “sports journalists” began…the spring of 1983. I read idiotic report after useless commentary seemingly without end about the NCAAT that year. It quickly became obvious that intelligence, originality, and insight was not required for a career in sports journalism. (When you throw in the idiot Doyel, you can see that sports journalism hasn’t improved much over the intervening years.)

Lest you develop concerns for my mental well-being over those two disjointed paragraphs, let me tie them together. Bob Holiday at WRAL and I have completely different memories on ACC expansion plans and projections, If we give Bob the benefit of the doubt concerning possible Doyel tendencies, let’s see what you remember about ACC expansion plans and projections.

Bob’s Memories:

When proponents of ACC expansion first pressed their case in 2003, there seemed to be a tacit assumption that the new 12 team league, bolstered by the addition of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, would each year stage a championship game featuring at least one and possibly two legitimate contenders for the national title.

My Memories:

Strange, but I remember the original ACC expansion plan as Miami, BC, and Syracuse. In other words, one football school, one basketball school, and one that was sort of good/decent at both. So it seems to me that Swofford’s original plan called for a more balanced expansion than what we ended up with. But since Johnny didn’t get Dean Smith and Coach K on-board first, we ended up with VT instead of Syracuse.

I also seem to remember reading that the loser of a conference championship game almost never got invited to a BCS bowl. So the claim that ACC expansion had anything at all to do with generating two title contenders is somewhere between silly and bizarre.

How could anyone possibly guarantee a “legitimate contender” for the BCS championship game? Common sense would say that the best way to produce a championship contender would be one strong team playing in a weak conference (ie FSU and the 8 dwarfs or USC in the Pac-10).

The addition of a championship game gives your potential championship contender another tough game. Was the ACC championship game about producing national championships or about money from the next TV contract?

Bob’s Thoughts

Four years later, however, some still feel ACC expansion has not measured up…Expansion has brought in new revenue, but has also increased the pay out from nine schools to 12. At this point, each school takes in about $10. 9 million, same as in the nine team ACC.

My Thoughts

Who is this “some” that Bob refers to? Can someone point me to the commentaries, blogs, and message boards that are bemoaning how horrible ACC expansion has been?

Bob needs to do a little digging over where the money comes from that he is referring to. The one $11M figure he refers to combines TV money from both FB and BB, Bowl games, and NCAAT games. Throwing out the one composite figure with no breakdown proves absolutely nothing…especially if your commentary is focusing solely on football.

As I said earlier I am an engineer, not a business major. However, I have deduced that most business classes can be summarized in the following three laws:

– Make more money this year than you did last year.
– Whenever you can not make more money, make at least as much as you did last year.
– Never, never, ever make less money this year than you did last year.

I remember that the financial projections from ACC expansion had both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, the addition of a FB championship game and the possibility of a second BCS bowl were added into the projections. On the negative side, the next TV contract for football was expected to be smaller than the existing one. In other words, ACC expansion was targeted at reaching Business Law #1 or #2, while absolutely insuring that Law #3 was met.

Bob’s Thoughts

The ACC’s new expansion-rich TV contract doubled football revenues and added markedly to the league’s national exposure on ESPN and ABC.

My Thoughts

Huh? How did the last two quoted paragraphs end up in the same commentary?

Bob’s Thoughts

But the arguments for expansion in 2003 suggested there would be more. The 12 team ACC was supposed to significantly increase the chance for the league to put two teams in the Bowl Championship Series (and bring in several million more dollars).

My Thoughts

“Significantly increase the chance” and “guarantee” are two completely different concepts. It looks to me like Bob is a little confused about the difference.

Bob’s Thoughts

Personally, I enjoy showing highlights on football Saturdays for a 12 team league, and there is no question the ACC generates more news since expansion. But for the “great football upgrade” to live up to its promise, the ACC must outperform the Big East and the Big Ten and challenge the SEC in most years. It must put more teams into the rankings and occasionally send two teams to the BCS. And win some national championships.

My Thoughts:

Finally, something we can agree on. If the ACC wants to be thought of as an elite football conference, then you have to win….bowl games, high-profile OOC games, and national championships.

But until then, the conference’s athletic department budgets are being buoyed quite nicely from the new TV contract for its football games. After all, that’s what expansion was really all about….wasn’t it?

If you weren’t around here during SFN’s dissection of Doyel after the Herbster bailed out of Raleigh, scroll back up and hit the links with his name. I think you will find both of those entries worth the time they take to read.

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

General NCS Football

57 Responses to Reminiscing About ACC Expansion

  1. Astral Rain2 07/24/2007 at 12:03 PM #

    Why should State hide from Va Tech? I set get the best teams possible and play them. I just don’t think basketball should have been screwed with- ACC should have gotten one more team and stuck it at 10.

    Pitt would have been a better choice then BC I believe, but I think Pitt would rather join the Big 10 then ACC.

  2. CaptainCraptacular 07/24/2007 at 12:27 PM #

    Don’t know if this has been posted, but if it hasn’t:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-acckickoff&prov=ap&type=lgns

  3. McPete 07/24/2007 at 12:47 PM #

    “Mr. O – have you ever been to a game in Miami?”

    If not, then ‘go git ya sum!’

    At least VPI basketball has not brought down the conference as i believe some in the media suggested. Miami has to an extent (though two years ago i think they did surprise with a decent record).

  4. BJD95 07/24/2007 at 12:56 PM #

    What we did was give VT a permanent foothold in the landscape. Had they stayed outside, they could be utterly dependent on their coach (Beamer), with no deep foundation to sustain them once he retired. ACC membership will help the Hokies recruit NC (in fact, it already has), and removes a comparative selling point for typical recruiting foes like UVA and MD. This would have loomed even larger in the scenario I laid out, where power conference membership yields huge competitive advantages.

    The basketball impact is not as large, but it does allow them to compete better for secondary recruiting targets of schools like NC State. It gave an anonymous program an instant baseline of credibility.

  5. BoKnowsNCS71 07/24/2007 at 12:58 PM #

    /\ The Pack sure had no problems with VPI basketball last year.

  6. haze 07/24/2007 at 1:09 PM #

    ^ Yes, all true… but not necessarily a problem for the conference as a whole as VT gains and UVA/MD/Big4 losses are ALL contained within the same conference. At least they make the ACC money when they do well.

    Without VT, the last 3 years of ACC football would have been a national embarrassment and they have held their own in basketball. In the mean time, ‘Cuse has sucked across the board over that period. I also don’t believe that ‘Cuse would have gained much at all from ACC affiliation as they are a bball school within the historically strong Big East. Long term, I have a hard time seeing the addition of VT as a negative, at least until you get to fantasy alternatives like Penn State or ND.

  7. noah 07/24/2007 at 1:39 PM #

    “Noah, why was Pitt never considered?”

    Maybe they were and said they wouldn’t leave?

    I asked about Miami because:

    1) Miami is about the biggest cesspool DUMP in the country. You have to go to New Jersey to find a more horrid town (Patterson, Berlin, A-City, and Newark are all worse than Miami).

    2) The Orange Bowl…there are still a couple of stadiums that are worse, but when it comes to the neighborhoods around the stadium, I don’t think the Orange Bowl has any comparisons. Tiger Stadium and old Memorial Stadium in Baltimore were worse…but those have been torn down. Yankee Stadium is a close second…but the Orange Bowl is still worse.

    3) Miami fans make Dook football fans look like fanatics. Or maybe they just have good sense and stay the hell away from the Orange Bowl. For whatever reason, the stadium’s usually half-empty (or worse) unless they are currently ranked in the top five and the team they are playing is equally ranked.

    I doubt there’s a program in any sport anywhere in the world that benefits more from its geography (in terms of proximity to talent) than Miami, Fl.

  8. BoKnowsNCS71 07/24/2007 at 1:52 PM #

    Sun, sex, and South Beach — now what would interest a promising recruit in that?

    Actually I always thought we took Miami to get our foot (or ACC feet) in the door for those Florida recruits who Miami ticked off by not recruiting them. Revenge motive — have heard that a few times.

  9. CaptainCraptacular 07/24/2007 at 2:09 PM #

    I heard FSU pushed for Miami, and started the whole expansion ball rolling in the first place. There were also whispers that if the ACC didn’t expand (and perhaps if Miami wasn’t included in those plans), that FSU could leave the ACC for greener pastures.

  10. noah 07/24/2007 at 2:11 PM #

    There’s sun and sex pretty much everywhere. Especially when college is involved.

    South Beach is a touron hellhole decorated by blind retards. It’s like South of the Border on steroids, smeared with pig feces and marinated in the urine of the devil.

    If South Beach were an alcoholic drink, it would be oyster juice and diet mountain dew with two shots of wild turkey.

    If South Beach was a movie script, it would be Baby Geniuses II.

    It’s like it was created when God was strolling across the earth and stepped into some gum around Akron…and he realized that he something on his shoes around Thomasville…and managed to grab a stick and scrape it off somewhere around the Keys. He threw it back over his shoulder as he continued to move south.

  11. BoKnowsNCS71 07/24/2007 at 2:41 PM #

    And I thought it was where all the Gomorrans and Sodomites relocated after the fire. lol

  12. statered 07/24/2007 at 2:53 PM #

    Noah – you left out the jewel of NJ, Camden!

  13. waxhaw 07/24/2007 at 4:27 PM #

    Here is our highest (pre expansion) final BCS ranking by year

    2002 FSU #14
    2003 FSU #7
    2004 FSU #16
    2005 FSU #22
    2006 Wake #14

    I can’t remember the rules for being eligible for an automatic conference bid to the BCS but we’d probably be in jeopardy with these rankings. Also keep in mind that some of those could be even lower without quality wins/games versus Miami, VT and/or BC.

    Personally, I think we had to expand. College football has a lot more money behind it than college basketball. Our overall revenues have not gone down. Our football profile has been greatly enhanced. So far, I’d call it a success.

  14. VaWolf82 07/24/2007 at 4:34 PM #

    College football has a lot more money behind it than college basketball.

    I’m not positive that this is accurate for the ACC. However, it doesn’t really matter. There was alot more room for the ACC to increase revenues on the FB side, than on the BB side.

    The ACC is getting the money, now they need to produce more wins. No one (including me) has pointed out that no ACC team has won a BCS bowl since FSU’s last MNC. That is not good, no matter how you slice it.

  15. SNDMAN 07/24/2007 at 4:46 PM #

    If VT was such a weight on the ACC, why did they tie for the most conference championships this year? (Without Football nonetheless) Not to mention they swept UNC in basketball (something rarely done) and beat Duke at Home. Again not done very often, especially beating both UNC and Duke at home in the same season. They did however get swept by the Pack. Moving on…

    Has VT benefited from joining the ACC… absolutely

    But Wolf82 said it best… FSU is the only school to win a BCS game and that was ~7 years ago

  16. Clarksa 07/24/2007 at 7:18 PM #

    I remember the updates we got almost every day on The Wolfpacker premium board…we had great inside info and were well ahead of the media reports.

    I was never in favor of VT blackmailing itself into the league, but after the trip up there a few years ago, I’m glad their in…probably one of the best road trips I have taken.

  17. redfred2 07/24/2007 at 8:36 PM #

    BJD, I have to totally agree with you about how VT has greatly benefitted and become legit all the way around because of their affilliation with the ACC now. Frank Beamer was pretty much it for them before.

    Also Bo, back when the Gamecocks were in the ACC, folks either loved them, or loved to hate them. I always regretted when they pulled out. They had done a good job and built good sports programs in the ACC, and they were an opponent that you had be ready to play. They lost that edge for a long time after they left.

    Finally, if I was a coach in any sport at VT or BC, but especially BC, I would post this thread in my locker room wall and make sure it got read often when preparing to face the Wolfpack.

  18. Astral Rain2 07/24/2007 at 10:13 PM #

    Thinking of it, if I had to add three schools, it would be VT, South Carolina, and either Pitt/BC- I consider the two programs good and equal.

    South Carolina is a better regional rivalry and cheaper travel costs then Miami. Their basketball stinks a bit, but not as bad as Miami.

  19. kool k 07/25/2007 at 7:43 AM #

    “South Beach is a touron hellhole decorated by blind retards. It’s like South of the Border on steroids, smeared with pig feces and marinated in the urine of the devil. ”
    The only thing that could improve this quote of quotes would be hearing John Facenda saying it over a montage of Post-Marino Dolphins highlights

  20. BoKnowsNCS71 07/25/2007 at 8:47 AM #

    Fred — it was such a different time. I was a Jr at State. I still relish when Vann Williford and the guys pulled off the upset of a fantastic SC team (Riker, Roche, et al). They were so ticked off since only the ACCT winner could go to the NCAAT. All of Hillsboro St was TP’d.

    One of my best friends was coming out of Brother’s with a girl on his first date (she later became his wife) and casually picked up some of the TP and threw it aside. A cop arrested him for “littering” (a la Alice’s Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie) and he spent the night in jail in a cell which included an English professor from State. (He was never fired not was that news for the N&O.) Lots more slack beack then.

    I’m told that Dietezel in FB was really the leader in the charge to secede from the ACC but I always believed it was McGuire. Being an independent back then (like Notre Dame) meant you would not be restricted to theconference limit on getting in to the NCAAT as long as you had a lot of wins. And ironically, that started to change at the NCAA increased the number of tournament teams in the subsequent years.

    I also think there was “penalty money” that had to be played if SC wanted to rejoin. They would not get a share of the conference money for X years.

    Just reminescing.

  21. noah 07/25/2007 at 9:38 AM #

    South Carolina’s departure from the ACC were 100 percent about the entrance requirements that the ACC had imposed.

    They led the charge to break away from the ACC and thought they were going to have company and ultimately, got hung out to dry.

    The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported on 1/30/71 that South Carolina and Clemson were going to pull out of the ACC and form a a new conference with Clemson, FSU, Memphis State, Tulane, S. Miss, VPI and WVU.

    However, Frank Howard stepped down as AD and was replaced by Bill McLellan. Also, Robert James took over as ACC commissioner.

    On 3/29/71, South Carolina announced they were pulling out of the ACC. Clemson’s president announced that they weren’t leaving and they were happy with the ACC. The next year, Clemson had two players, Joey Beach and James Vickery, who sued in federal court over the ACC minimum requirement of 800 on the SAT test. They claimed that the requirement violated the 14th amendment and denied them equal protection under the law.

    The judge in the case utlimately struck down the minimum SAT score and said it wasn’t based on valid reasoning. Since Clemson didn’t have anything in their by-laws about having at least an 800 on the SATs, the ACC couldn’t enforce such a rule.

    The ACC was planning on appealing the ruling, but decided that summer to go ahead and drop the rule. The same day they dropped the appeal, by the way, the NCAA put Dook on probation for illegal transportation of some basketball product named David Thompson.

    Dook claims that a booster took DT to the ACC tournament and bought him a suit. They claimed the booster did it without anyone at Dook encouraging him to do so and without their knowledge. Since DT didn’t enroll at Dook, they didn’t think they should be punished, since they clearly didn’t get an advantage from actions that they didn’t sanction.

    And since we have a bunch of questions about this…the ACC investigated both Dook and NC State. They claimed that NC State didn’t flagrantly violate any rules, however they were negligent in enforcing the rules. Willis Casey (State’s AD) reported back to both the Chancellor and the ACC commissioner that he agreed.

    “What I do find are several evidences of carelessness and bad judgement on the part of the basketball staff. The deficiencies of attention or jdugement or both permitted situations to occur quite unnecessarily out of which allegations arose.”

    — Willis Casey, 9/27/72.

    The ACC commissioner responded and said that he sympathized with both Dook and State and said the violations happened because of confusion over the rules, not out of malice or a desire to break the rules.

    And all of this comes from Bruce Corrie’s 1979 history of the conference, “The Atlantic Coast Conference: 1953-1978.”

  22. PAPacker 07/25/2007 at 10:50 AM #

    ACC expansion has significantly weakened traditional rivalries and equity in basketball and football. It’s a shame that State and Duke or Virginia only play once in basketball while not playing in football, as has been the case with Duke. Local rivalries have suffered at the altar of the almighty dollar. One of the great joys of the old ACC was playing your neighbor’s or your brother’s team and having those rivalries ebb and flow through the basketball season or be kindled by the annual meeting in football. I miss the Big Four Tournament and would be thrilled to see the return of the Dixie Classic.

  23. BoKnowsNCS71 07/25/2007 at 11:15 AM #

    Good stuff Noah. I had heard that the reason UNC never got Henry Bibby who then went to UCLA was because of the higher ACC SATs.

    It is nice to hear from folks on the inside about the politics of the SC departure. There was a whole lot less information available back then other than the N&O writers and the talking heads at a few games on TV. Most of us (inclduing me) just saw it as sour grapes for not being able to take their dream team at SC to the dance.

    I did find a website with the SC’s temple of worship to that team — they really felt screwed by not getting the chance to play for a Nat. Championship.

  24. highstick 07/25/2007 at 12:14 PM #

    For what it’s worth, but this is my take on how USC fans view the current situation based on living in SC for almost 30 years. Most would probably agree that leaving the ACC was a mistake for the basketball program, however I don’t think many would want to go back to the ACC for basketball and abandon SEC football. There’s basically a disdain for ACC football altogether and they feel that 4th in the SEC East still is better than ACC champion.

    Noah’s definitely right on his research. I had one of my Clempson buddies tell me a few years ago that they really made a mistake about not leaving the ACC then as the ACC “was really holding them back” Of course, he’s still waiting for the return of Danny Ford though!

    Big Four and Dixie Classic in Reynolds! Wow! Would I love to see that again!!!!!!!!!!

    Speaking of Gamecock basketball history, check out this link to a picture and article on John Roche, Kevin Joyce, and others this past week.

    http://www.gogamecocks.com/index.php/site/daily_article/basketball_together_again/

  25. waxhaw 07/25/2007 at 12:27 PM #

    SC fans make ECU fans seem like choir boys. I would never, ever under any circumstances want SC back in the ACC.

Leave a Reply