Expansion discussion does screwy things to peoples' brains.

Cincinnati and Oklahoma are wildly unrealistic options but Charlotte makes perfect sense - but only after they first get an offer from the SEC, which they would then leverage into an agreement with the ACC.

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

I say we wait on Charlotte and first see if they garner an invitation to the NFC South. If that looks inevitable, then and only then should the ACC pounce on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

(06-22-2017 10:16 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The Charlotte metro college fan base is predominately UNC fans. I'd put the number at 75-80%. Adding UNCC to get another 5-10% would be detrimental for all the reasons others have mentioned.

In addition to UNC, they have to compete with NC State, Wake, Duke, Clemson and even USC for fans. Plus they have the Hornets and Panthers to contend with.

I know their location close to the South Carolina border means UNC-C would have to compete with Clemson and Carolina fans, but that cuts both ways. Charlotte is obviously larger but I think adding UNC-C would only help the ACC in the Greenville-Spartanburg market with Carolina being the only nearby SEC school vs. two in the ACC.

ACC does not need another North Carolina university! Another North Carolina school brings no more revenue or TV viewers. Cincinnati, West Virginia, Connecticut, Texas and Oklahoma do both.

I really can't tell if this thread is a joke.

(06-18-2017 03:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  There's been endless discussion of ACC expansion on this board. It focuses upon candidates that, in my opinion, run from unlikely (Cincy) to absurd (Oklahoma). Why don't we talk about a far more realistic proposition.

Imagine it's ten years from now, 2027. The ACC's composition is the same as it is now. The ACC Commissioner is approached by the chancellor of a school. This chancellor has talked off and on with the ACC Commissioner for a few years. The ACC has been polite but noncommittal. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that circumstances have changed. This school has been in talks with the SEC. The chancellor says that a formal offer to join the SEC will come soon. However, the chancellor says that the ACC is the school's dream conference. The chancellor reminds the ACC Commissioner of some facts he knows well. The school is very much in the ACC's footprint. The school is large (over 35,000 students) and growing. It's located in a large and rapidly growing metro area that lacks a P5 school. The school is extremely ambitious athletically. It's been rapidly improving its facilities, attendance and athletic performance for more than 15 years. It's a leap to the P5 level but they're ready. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows there has been particularly strong opposition to this school joining the ACC coming from a couple of ACC schools but that he can make it politically impractical for those schools to oppose adding this school -- remember how Va. Tech overcame U.Va's opposition. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that several ACC schools may want to avoid having to recruit against this school but reminds him that's going to happen anyway if this school joins the SEC. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows he can't really bring many new TVs viewers to the ACC but that he can take them away if his school goes to the SEC.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the school is UNC-Charlotte.

Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

(06-22-2017 12:31 PM)nole Wrote:  I really can't tell if this thread is a joke.

It's either that or somebody actually took the brown acid.

(06-22-2017 02:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 12:31 PM)nole Wrote:  I really can't tell if this thread is a joke.

It's either that or somebody actually took the brown acid.

Lordy I hope it is!

The ACC needs name brands. The only team that would be attainable that makes sense athletically is WVU. The academics are the only big issue there (fans too but I was just looking at what the presidents are going to care about). Obviously if ND wants in they will get in even if it meant going to 21.

(06-22-2017 01:08 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 03:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  There's been endless discussion of ACC expansion on this board. It focuses upon candidates that, in my opinion, run from unlikely (Cincy) to absurd (Oklahoma). Why don't we talk about a far more realistic proposition.

Imagine it's ten years from now, 2027. The ACC's composition is the same as it is now. The ACC Commissioner is approached by the chancellor of a school. This chancellor has talked off and on with the ACC Commissioner for a few years. The ACC has been polite but noncommittal. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that circumstances have changed. This school has been in talks with the SEC. The chancellor says that a formal offer to join the SEC will come soon. However, the chancellor says that the ACC is the school's dream conference. The chancellor reminds the ACC Commissioner of some facts he knows well. The school is very much in the ACC's footprint. The school is large (over 35,000 students) and growing. It's located in a large and rapidly growing metro area that lacks a P5 school. The school is extremely ambitious athletically. It's been rapidly improving its facilities, attendance and athletic performance for more than 15 years. It's a leap to the P5 level but they're ready. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows there has been particularly strong opposition to this school joining the ACC coming from a couple of ACC schools but that he can make it politically impractical for those schools to oppose adding this school -- remember how Va. Tech overcame U.Va's opposition. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that several ACC schools may want to avoid having to recruit against this school but reminds him that's going to happen anyway if this school joins the SEC. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows he can't really bring many new TVs viewers to the ACC but that he can take them away if his school goes to the SEC.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the school is UNC-Charlotte.

Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

(06-22-2017 07:01 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:08 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 03:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  There's been endless discussion of ACC expansion on this board. It focuses upon candidates that, in my opinion, run from unlikely (Cincy) to absurd (Oklahoma). Why don't we talk about a far more realistic proposition.

Imagine it's ten years from now, 2027. The ACC's composition is the same as it is now. The ACC Commissioner is approached by the chancellor of a school. This chancellor has talked off and on with the ACC Commissioner for a few years. The ACC has been polite but noncommittal. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that circumstances have changed. This school has been in talks with the SEC. The chancellor says that a formal offer to join the SEC will come soon. However, the chancellor says that the ACC is the school's dream conference. The chancellor reminds the ACC Commissioner of some facts he knows well. The school is very much in the ACC's footprint. The school is large (over 35,000 students) and growing. It's located in a large and rapidly growing metro area that lacks a P5 school. The school is extremely ambitious athletically. It's been rapidly improving its facilities, attendance and athletic performance for more than 15 years. It's a leap to the P5 level but they're ready. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows there has been particularly strong opposition to this school joining the ACC coming from a couple of ACC schools but that he can make it politically impractical for those schools to oppose adding this school -- remember how Va. Tech overcame U.Va's opposition. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that several ACC schools may want to avoid having to recruit against this school but reminds him that's going to happen anyway if this school joins the SEC. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows he can't really bring many new TVs viewers to the ACC but that he can take them away if his school goes to the SEC.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the school is UNC-Charlotte.

Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

I prefer to play offense... If the SEC offers UNC C, counter by inviting Auburn and Vanderbilt.

Vandy won't even get you Nashville much less Tennessee. Auburn may hate Alabama but they don't want to endanger their game with Alabama. There's the same dynamic with Oklahoma-Texas, NCSU-UNC, etc. I also think that Auburn is so embedded in the SEC that them leaving for another conference is unthinkable.

In years past, the ACC could have had Penn State or Florida but not now. There's no one out there who's really interesting to the ACC that's likely to be available. It will take something disruptive such as UNC-C having realistic P5 aspirations or Texas leaving the B12 to upset apple carts enough to cause the ACC to add a school.

(06-23-2017 03:21 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Vandy won't even get you Nashville much less Tennessee. Auburn may hate Alabama but they don't want to endanger their game with Alabama. There's the same dynamic with Oklahoma-Texas, NCSU-UNC, etc. I also think that Auburn is so embedded in the SEC that them leaving for another conference is unthinkable.

In years past, the ACC could have had Penn State or Florida but not now. There's no one out there who's really interesting to the ACC that's likely to be available. It will take something disruptive such as UNC-C having realistic P5 aspirations or Texas leaving the B12 to upset apple carts enough to cause the ACC to add a school.

We would love not having to play the red menace, then maybe we could get Wake Forest back on our schedule.

Adding UNC-WhoCares is a terrible idea that will hurt the league.

Assuming any school can "own" any market is an erroneous assumption. Well, except for the military academies, but they haven't invaded anybody in a while....

(06-23-2017 11:38 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 07:01 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:08 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 03:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  There's been endless discussion of ACC expansion on this board. It focuses upon candidates that, in my opinion, run from unlikely (Cincy) to absurd (Oklahoma). Why don't we talk about a far more realistic proposition.

Imagine it's ten years from now, 2027. The ACC's composition is the same as it is now. The ACC Commissioner is approached by the chancellor of a school. This chancellor has talked off and on with the ACC Commissioner for a few years. The ACC has been polite but noncommittal. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that circumstances have changed. This school has been in talks with the SEC. The chancellor says that a formal offer to join the SEC will come soon. However, the chancellor says that the ACC is the school's dream conference. The chancellor reminds the ACC Commissioner of some facts he knows well. The school is very much in the ACC's footprint. The school is large (over 35,000 students) and growing. It's located in a large and rapidly growing metro area that lacks a P5 school. The school is extremely ambitious athletically. It's been rapidly improving its facilities, attendance and athletic performance for more than 15 years. It's a leap to the P5 level but they're ready. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows there has been particularly strong opposition to this school joining the ACC coming from a couple of ACC schools but that he can make it politically impractical for those schools to oppose adding this school -- remember how Va. Tech overcame U.Va's opposition. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that several ACC schools may want to avoid having to recruit against this school but reminds him that's going to happen anyway if this school joins the SEC. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows he can't really bring many new TVs viewers to the ACC but that he can take them away if his school goes to the SEC.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the school is UNC-Charlotte.

Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

(06-23-2017 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:38 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 07:01 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:08 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 03:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  There's been endless discussion of ACC expansion on this board. It focuses upon candidates that, in my opinion, run from unlikely (Cincy) to absurd (Oklahoma). Why don't we talk about a far more realistic proposition.

Imagine it's ten years from now, 2027. The ACC's composition is the same as it is now. The ACC Commissioner is approached by the chancellor of a school. This chancellor has talked off and on with the ACC Commissioner for a few years. The ACC has been polite but noncommittal. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that circumstances have changed. This school has been in talks with the SEC. The chancellor says that a formal offer to join the SEC will come soon. However, the chancellor says that the ACC is the school's dream conference. The chancellor reminds the ACC Commissioner of some facts he knows well. The school is very much in the ACC's footprint. The school is large (over 35,000 students) and growing. It's located in a large and rapidly growing metro area that lacks a P5 school. The school is extremely ambitious athletically. It's been rapidly improving its facilities, attendance and athletic performance for more than 15 years. It's a leap to the P5 level but they're ready. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows there has been particularly strong opposition to this school joining the ACC coming from a couple of ACC schools but that he can make it politically impractical for those schools to oppose adding this school -- remember how Va. Tech overcame U.Va's opposition. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that several ACC schools may want to avoid having to recruit against this school but reminds him that's going to happen anyway if this school joins the SEC. The chancellor tells the ACC Commissioner that he knows he can't really bring many new TVs viewers to the ACC but that he can take them away if his school goes to the SEC.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the school is UNC-Charlotte.

Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

How's that advantage working out for them?

(06-23-2017 11:02 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:38 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 07:01 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:08 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Whole lot of TL;DR up there, friend.

You lost me, however, when you hit "UNC-Charlotte". Of the two conferences, the ACC gains little to nothing with them as a member. Charlotte is already in the footprint of the ACC.

The SEC "could" gain a little more, but I suspect the SEC gets respectable exposure in Charlotte because of football.

However, I believe the argument that "UNC-Charlotte as an SEC" member would take viewers away from the ACC is a flawed one. Especially in football -- the schools already have their viewership relative to the Charlotte market w/o the additional mouth to feed.

If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

How's that advantage working out for them?

Well it was 14 million dollars more last year so I'd say pretty well.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday....e.amp.html

(06-23-2017 11:15 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:02 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:38 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 07:01 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  If the SEC were trying to get into the Charlotte market they would try to get NCST. Plus that would give the SEC Raleigh.

They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

How's that advantage working out for them?

Well it was 14 million dollars more last year so I'd say pretty well.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday....e.amp.html

Well it was a Birmingham Bowl loss to something called "USF" vs. a National Championship trophy so I'd say not very well at all. Not to mention a mere 6-4 record against Clemson under the best football coach Carolina has ever had and will ever have.

Are you a Carolina fan? If so, did you get any part of the SEC's revenue distribution, like some sort of dividend for fans? Are tickets to Carolina games less expensive with all that extra money floating around? Do you have better and less expensive access to be able to watch Carolina games at home on TV or over the internet?

(06-24-2017 02:23 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:15 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:02 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:38 AM)opossum Wrote:  They could try, but what if we countered by pursuing a UNC-C/Carolina combination to get to 16 members? That would completely lock down a large section of the country (VA, NC and SC combined have a higher population than Florida and aren't far behind Texas).

Such an aggressive move might persuade the SEC to turn its eyes to the West!

South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

How's that advantage working out for them?

Well it was 14 million dollars more last year so I'd say pretty well.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday....e.amp.html

Well it was a Birmingham Bowl loss to something called "USF" vs. a National Championship trophy so I'd say not very well at all. Not to mention a mere 6-4 record against Clemson under the best football coach Carolina has ever had and will ever have.

Are you a Carolina fan? If so, did you get any part of the SEC's revenue distribution, like some sort of dividend for fans? Are tickets to Carolina games less expensive with all that extra money floating around? Do you have better and less expensive access to be able to watch Carolina games at home on TV or over the internet?

Carolina is in Chapel Hill and the school does not receive any monies from the SEC.

(06-24-2017 08:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 02:23 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:15 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 11:02 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  South Carolina isn't giving up the sole advantage they have over Clemson (SEC membership) for anything.

How's that advantage working out for them?

Well it was 14 million dollars more last year so I'd say pretty well.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday....e.amp.html

Well it was a Birmingham Bowl loss to something called "USF" vs. a National Championship trophy so I'd say not very well at all. Not to mention a mere 6-4 record against Clemson under the best football coach Carolina has ever had and will ever have.

Are you a Carolina fan? If so, did you get any part of the SEC's revenue distribution, like some sort of dividend for fans? Are tickets to Carolina games less expensive with all that extra money floating around? Do you have better and less expensive access to be able to watch Carolina games at home on TV or over the internet?

Carolina is in Chapel Hill and the school does not receive any monies from the SEC.

Not sure if you're serious but we were obviously from the context discussing the University of South Carolina at Columbia (which is often colloquially referred to as "Carolina"), a member of the Southeastern Conference (often colloquially referred to as "the SEC") since the early 1990's. I don't think anyone believes that the Tar Heels are taking money from the SEC (although I wouldn't personally put it past them).

If the post or my reply were referencing both the University of South Carolina at Columbia and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (which is also colloquially referred to as "Carolina"), then as a careful writer I would have needed to distinguish the two by calling them "North Carolina" and "South Carolina" or the "Tar Heels" and the "Gamecocks" or "UNC" and "USC," respectively.

Likewise, if we were discussing all of the University of North Carolina's locations we would call them "UNC-Wilmington," "UNC-Pembroke," "UNC-Chapel Hill" and so on. Or if we were discussing SEC* members we could call the University of South Carolina at Columbia "USC" or "Carolina" but if we were discussing all Division I FBS schools, we'd have to clarify which "USC" we're referring to, either by context or by calling them "South Carolina" and "Southern Cal."

* I mean the Southeastern Conference, not the Securities and Exchange Commission.