(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 05:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's a shame that the ACC gave up so easily on the pursuit of Syracuse ( the first time).
If the Orange had come into the ACC in 1991 with Florida State to form a 10 team league things might be a lot different up and down the eastern time zone today.

The ACC didn't give up on Syracuse, there were not enough votes to add them. Maryland, Clemson, GT, NC State, and UVa did not want them. UNC, Duke, and NC State did not want them in 2003.

I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 05:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's a shame that the ACC gave up so easily on the pursuit of Syracuse ( the first time).
If the Orange had come into the ACC in 1991 with Florida State to form a 10 team league things might be a lot different up and down the eastern time zone today.

The ACC didn't give up on Syracuse, there were not enough votes to add them. Maryland, Clemson, GT, NC State, and UVa did not want them. UNC, Duke, and NC State did not want them in 2003.

I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 05:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's a shame that the ACC gave up so easily on the pursuit of Syracuse ( the first time).
If the Orange had come into the ACC in 1991 with Florida State to form a 10 team league things might be a lot different up and down the eastern time zone today.

The ACC didn't give up on Syracuse, there were not enough votes to add them. Maryland, Clemson, GT, NC State, and UVa did not want them. UNC, Duke, and NC State did not want them in 2003.

I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/storie...Z4jtD6GPIU

The SEC wasn't the only option. The Metro Conference was exploring the formation of a "super" conference, including the 'Noles in their plans for a 16-team league. The surprise player in the field was the ACC, led by commissioner Gene Corrigan, the former athletic director at Notre Dame, who sought to bolster the league's football stature.

It didn't take long for the committee to realize FSU had become a hot property in the escalating expansion race.

"At that time we thought we had arrived, when you have the SEC at your doorstep," Haggard said. "We had the ACC begging us and the SEC begging us."

At the annual ACC meetings on May 22 in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Florida State was mentioned for the first time. The discussions led Corrigan to schedule another meeting on July 25 at Sedgefield Country Club in Greensboro, N.C., in the exact room where the conference was formed in 1953.

Frustrated by the league's lack of focus on the expansion issue, Corrigan opted for a different approach at the Sedgefield meeting.

"I said, 'Let's make believe that we've agreed to expand. Each one of you has to write down a name of school,' " Corrigan recalled.

The secret ballot of member schools turned up four votes each for Syracuse and Florida State.

By the close of the four-hour meeting, Corrigan had permission from the ACC athletic directors to approach both schools to gauge interest. His first call was to Syracuse A.D. Jake Crouthamel. Crouthamel expressed interest, but because the Orangemen were charter members of the Big East, said the ACC would have to build a strong case. Corrigan, however, was not interested in wining and dining and told Crouthamel: "Just forget I called."

His call to Goin, however, yielded a different response.

"Bob said, 'Oh my goodness, I was hoping there was some interest [from] the ACC,'" Corrigan said.

Time and popular opinion, at least among FSU's decision-makers, were not on Goin's side and he expressed those concerns to Corrigan during the initial phone call.

Corrigan said that Goin had informed him that talks with Kramer and SEC officials were moving swiftly.

"He [Goin] said, 'We don't have much time,' " said Corrigan, who arranged an Aug. 17 meeting with Sliger and Goin before a group of ACC faculty representatives at the league's offices in Greensboro.

"They were very impressive," Corrigan said of FSU's presentation. "I thought we might get a unanimous vote."

It did not take much to convince Corrigan that the addition of FSU would have a profound impact on the league. Not only would the Seminoles' football program lend credibility to the ACC, but the prospect of tapping into Florida's vast media market was particularly enticing.

Needing six affirmative votes for expansion -- and fully aware that Duke and Maryland were opposed -- Corrigan immediately set out on a whirlwind personal tour in an attempt to sell the league's university presidents.

Sliger and Goin returned to Tallahassee equally impressed, but facing an equally daunting charge -- altering the minds of those who wanted FSU to join the SEC.

I remember a radio interview that Coach Bowden did not long after FSU announced that it had decided to join The ACC.

To paraphrase him he compared The SEC to ribs and The ACC to caviar. He said something to the effect that he loved ribs but you didn't get a chance to have caviar everyday. That's why FSU chose The ACC.

I wonder if any FSU fans have that interview accessible anywhere on the net. I always enjoyed listening to Coach Bowden.
CJ

(08-23-2017 09:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I remember a radio interview that Coach Bowden did not long after FSU announced that it had decided to join The ACC.

To paraphrase him he compared The SEC to ribs and The ACC to caviar. He said something to the effect that he loved ribs but you didn't get a chance to have caviar everyday. That's why FSU chose The ACC.

I wonder if any FSU fans have that interview accessible anywhere on the net. I always enjoyed listening to Coach Bowden.
CJ

I just wish some bright hard working person who has a desire for root-truth would write a book about college athletic conference realignment beginning, say, in 1990...through the present day. With lots of undeniable facts. Lots of 3x corroborated information. Lots of verified quotes from people who were there. And lots of Market and Financial and College and Media data. The reasoning at the time for various realignment decisions by conferences and programs - whether tactical or strategic or ad hoc - whether offensive or defensive. The College Sports community would gobble the book up.

(08-24-2017 07:38 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 09:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I remember a radio interview that Coach Bowden did not long after FSU announced that it had decided to join The ACC.

To paraphrase him he compared The SEC to ribs and The ACC to caviar. He said something to the effect that he loved ribs but you didn't get a chance to have caviar everyday. That's why FSU chose The ACC.

I wonder if any FSU fans have that interview accessible anywhere on the net. I always enjoyed listening to Coach Bowden.
CJ

I just wish some bright hard working person who has a desire for root-truth would write a book about college athletic conference realignment beginning, say, in 1990...through the present day. With lots of undeniable facts. Lots of 3x corroborated information. Lots of verified quotes from people who were there. And lots of Market and Financial and College and Media data. The reasoning at the time for various realignment decisions by conferences and programs - whether tactical or strategic or ad hoc - whether offensive or defensive. The College Sports community would gobble the book up.

You need to talk to OmniCarrier, OmniOrange, OrangeDude (same poster), he has threatened to write that book for years.

(08-24-2017 07:38 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I just wish some bright hard working person who has a desire for root-truth would write a book about college athletic conference realignment beginning, say, in 1990...through the present day. With lots of undeniable facts. Lots of 3x corroborated information. Lots of verified quotes from people who were there. And lots of Market and Financial and College and Media data. The reasoning at the time for various realignment decisions by conferences and programs - whether tactical or strategic or ad hoc - whether offensive or defensive. The College Sports community would gobble the book up.

I know I'd love to read it.

(08-24-2017 07:38 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 09:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I remember a radio interview that Coach Bowden did not long after FSU announced that it had decided to join The ACC.

To paraphrase him he compared The SEC to ribs and The ACC to caviar. He said something to the effect that he loved ribs but you didn't get a chance to have caviar everyday. That's why FSU chose The ACC.

I wonder if any FSU fans have that interview accessible anywhere on the net. I always enjoyed listening to Coach Bowden.
CJ

I just wish some bright hard working person who has a desire for root-truth would write a book about college athletic conference realignment beginning, say, in 1990...through the present day. With lots of undeniable facts. Lots of 3x corroborated information. Lots of verified quotes from people who were there. And lots of Market and Financial and College and Media data. The reasoning at the time for various realignment decisions by conferences and programs - whether tactical or strategic or ad hoc - whether offensive or defensive. The College Sports community would gobble the book up.

Much of what is out there is revisionist. The reasons for that are many. Deals that were worked and never came to pass almost always involve conversations and motives that would be considered tortuous interference. The publicity around a school joining (what can be documented) is a gloss because of what I just said. And many of those who were involved are still active college presidents, or working within the Higher Education realm and would see too much risk in doing a tell all. And the entities which would be the most likely to face law suits are major corporations involved in the media. Good luck getting the truth out of those who shape and control information surrounding events. And with regards to the media, those still negotiating with them for the schools and conferences dare not rattle their benefactor.

So, "What Gus is trying to say here is the issue ain't monkey." The issue is collusion. And without written or recorded evidence which documents offers made, and discussions that were had, while schools were still contractually bound to another conference, or through that conference to another network, would be impossible to find and therefore very hard to prove. And if those involved profited who will ever complain? The closest we came to an aha moment was when the B.C. president spoke of ESPN's involvement. But that didn't get much press and he went silent afterwards.

The general rule of thumb involving failed deals is that they never happened. And the general rule of thumb involving successful deals is that the only things that happened were those things which met protocols.

When ESPN was the only major player it was more wild and woolly than it is after a few big deals collapsed in 2010-1. When FOX was dialed in to what was going on behind the scenes the GOR's were slapped into place not only to protect current properties for both ESPN and FOX, but to also end many of the behind the scenes machinations. Now we wait until the GOR's are about done before behind the scenes dealings done between persons oblique to the networks, conferences and schools hash out, as proxies, the details. In 2010 it was college presidents who were friends that talked on behalf of the interested parties. There's more separation now, which will allow for greater plausible deniability.

And furthermore the tough language in the GOR's which prohibits under stiff financial penalty any overtures made or received involving the leaving of a member school have put the brakes on things as well. And who knew better how to word those GOR's than the law staffs that worked for the networks who were trying to close loopholes they knew their competition could use.

The mafia once formed coalitions to clean up wars between rival organizations. Prior to that the crimes were more public and obvious. But with competing parties in crime cooperation was necessary for the bottom line and to control overhead expenses stemming from the gang wars.

Realignment now that there are more involved than just ESPN (which only faced competition from mainline networks that each wanted 1 game a week in the past), has gotten cleaner for the same reasons.

So if there ever is a book on the subject, as Dragnet first stated, "The story you are about to see is true, but the names and places may have been changed to protect the innocent" (only insert the world guilty for innocent).

Some day if you are in a bar with an aged and half crocked Jim Delany, or share a couple of shots of Blanton's with Mike Slive, or you get Swofford's son to blab, or if you find a dismissed CEO from Disney who is pissed at the world and spouting off, you might begin to piece together how things worked. Until then rotsa ruck! Do you really expect anything but the sanitized and revised version of history from anyone working in Higher Education or the media?

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 05:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's a shame that the ACC gave up so easily on the pursuit of Syracuse ( the first time).
If the Orange had come into the ACC in 1991 with Florida State to form a 10 team league things might be a lot different up and down the eastern time zone today.

The ACC didn't give up on Syracuse, there were not enough votes to add them. Maryland, Clemson, GT, NC State, and UVa did not want them. UNC, Duke, and NC State did not want them in 2003.

I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 05:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The ACC didn't give up on Syracuse, there were not enough votes to add them. Maryland, Clemson, GT, NC State, and UVa did not want them. UNC, Duke, and NC State did not want them in 2003.

I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. The article did say that Corrigan visited every AD and president to talk about expansion. Who knows? I know It wasnt hypothetical when Corrigan actually called the 2 schools that all the AD's mentioned, SU and FSU.

But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 06:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  I guess that why, when Corrigan held his straw vote at Sedgefield, there were 4 votes for Florida State and 4 for Syracuse (and Corrigan called Syracuse first).

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

I used to sit in University Mall in Chapel Hill and listen to Bill Friday talk about the past. He would come by periodically to get ice cream and get away from the office. I had a part-time job in the mall at the time, but I recognized him. Back then, he was like a God in North Carolina. He knew how everything fit in NC and how things worked and why. A lot of State fans don't like him because they didn't know him, and didn't see the world he operated in - they will say he is a hypocrite - he was an idealist. One day he talked about adding GT to the ACC and how he liked that - he said it was good for State and UNC. He said GT now had VT's and then he explained what happened to VT and how some in the club felt as late as the early 80's.

The league has been run as a business only for about a decade, because the Presidents and Chancellors liked it as a club, and they liked it as a club because their big wheels liked it as a club.

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I think you are comparing an apple to an orange. FSU was always an all-sports addition in the summer of 1990. The only mention of Syracuse was also with Pitt and BC under the guise of a football only addition. Any call to Crouthmal would be to tell him no luck. Only Duke and UNC voted against expansion that year. In any straw poll, the presence of Syracuse was to blunt FSU.

Maryland didn't want to add FSU, but they didn't want to add Syracuse. Clemson, NC State, and GT did not want to add Syracuse, but a certain school has always been nice to Syracuse's face and then fixed the deck to keep them out - it's a basketball school.

As soon as the real votes were over, a group that included NC State AD Les Robinson began working on a deal with Paul Dee at FSU to add Miami and Syracuse and BC were desperate to come along. By the time that expansion came to a vote, Syracuse was on the outside again because certain basketball schools did not like Boehiem's big mouth.

Straw votes are fine and good, but often a straw vote is not a vote for someone but a vote against someone.

Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

(08-24-2017 05:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

They are all like that.......inbreeding.

(08-24-2017 05:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 07:44 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Link

From the linked article:

Once the ADs spoke their mind about FSU and Syracuse, Corrigan decided to call those schools and feel them out. Syracuse liked the idea but wanted in for football only.

“I’d love to be in the ACC but I tell you what, we’re one of the founders of the Big East and you’re going to have to woo us,” Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamel (a football guy).”

Corrigan responded, “Jake, forget I called … we’re not wooing anybody.”

1)Corrigan of the ACC called SU and FSU about joining the ACC for all sports at the time back in the 90's. Syracuse was somewhat interested but only wanted to be a fb only because they founded the BE conference and wanted to keep bb in the BE. The Acc was not interested in partial members at the time. They wanted a 10 team team ACC with Syracuse and FSU. There was no BE football conference at the time. So the ACC did not reject SU in 1990. It was more the other way around.


2)Syracuse fb was just as big and successful back in 1990 as SU basketball, maybe moreso as SU was a top 10 to 12 all time winning fb program back then.

That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

“Let’s make believe we’ve decided to expand and I want all eight of you to write on a paper the team or the school that you would want in our league,” Corrigan told the ADs. “Only two schools were mentioned by all the athletic directors: Florida State and Syracuse, one football school, one basketball school.”

Notice that Gene did not reveal what the Presidents and Chancellors told him?

The AD's are not decision makers in the ACC, especially at that time.

The article says Gene asked the AD's to write down the school (singular) you would want to add) If everyone mentioned FSU and Syracuse - that's 16 votes.

Syracuse was never going to the get the votes of the Presidents and Chancellors back then no matter what the AD's wanted. The holes in the article should reveal to you that what Corrigan is doing is telling a whitewashed story - who does Corrigan and the ACC need to protect with this story - told this way to that paper?

Syracuse

I'm sorry you were used several times in the 90's and 00's by factions within the ACC - often you were there to create a false choice and a false choice only.

What does it matter today?

More importantly what does it have to do with TCU or Texas. (Anyone mentioning Baylor and the ACC should be banned for stupidity).

(08-24-2017 07:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 02:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  That's an interesting article. I've never seen it before. Two important details the I find interesting is that Corrigan only speaks of AD's not Presdients and Chancellors and his mention of Duke and Vandy must have been the best kept secret in the State of NC.

At no time have I heard or talked to anyone connected to State, UNC, Duke, WF, or VT that mentioned Duke having interest in Vandy. I think that is Corrigan tossing out a red-herring to cover another school. Also as the votes in 1990 and 2003 showed, the opinions of the AD don't necssicarly matter to the Presidents and Chancellors.

That difference right there can produce two different narratives. Personally I have more faith in the truth if heard out of the Chancellor's office or his or her folks, than what the AD's say on the record for the very reasons JR cites.

I maintain that asking the AD's in 1990 hypothetically who they would consider adding if the ACC expanded is not as relevant as it seems because none of those parties had a vote and back then the Presidents and Chancellors made that decision not ESPN.

Truth is subjective, but if you want any truth with a neutral perspective in the ACC you have to find it from WF, UVa, and GT.

Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

“Let’s make believe we’ve decided to expand and I want all eight of you to write on a paper the team or the school that you would want in our league,” Corrigan told the ADs. “Only two schools were mentioned by all the athletic directors: Florida State and Syracuse, one football school, one basketball school.”

Notice that Gene did not reveal what the Presidents and Chancellors told him?

The AD's are not decision makers in the ACC, especially at that time.

The article says Gene asked the AD's to write down the school (singular) you would want to add) If everyone mentioned FSU and Syracuse - that's 16 votes.

Syracuse was never going to the get the votes of the Presidents and Chancellors back then no matter what the AD's wanted. The holes in the article should reveal to you that what Corrigan is doing is telling a whitewashed story - who does Corrigan and the ACC need to protect with this story - told this way to that paper?

Syracuse

I'm sorry you were used several times in the 90's and 00's by factions within the ACC - often you were there to create a false choice and a false choice only.

What does it matter today?

More importantly what does it have to do with TCU or Texas. (Anyone mentioning Baylor and the ACC should be banned for stupidity).

Im not going to go back and forth with you on this. Im correcting your wrong information. It seems to be very hurtful to you that SU actually turned down your precious ACC back in the 90's. You have a very hard time coming to grips with that. In fact,the ACC has been trying to get Syracuse since 1990, but because of politics, it didnt happen until 2013. You are right, it doesnt matter now. But it is what it is.

(08-24-2017 08:24 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 07:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Im thinking that back in those days the AD's did the voting for the Presidents based on their discussions with the presidents. Who knows? But this story has merit and it supports what I have been hearing for years. The ACC did approach SU for full membership in 1990 and SU wanted to keep its bb in the BE. Syracuse was a huge football name back in 1990 and every fb game was usually shown on national tv back then. Im not one to ever throw around "insider info sources" as others do, but this info also coincides with what I was told by Jake Crouthamel himself back in 2005 I believe, just before he retired. I interviewed him for another sports site that I was planning with a Louisville fan, that never came to fruition because of timing. We talked about the 1990 conversation with the ACC and it seemed that he kind of regretted his decision, as the BE had just been raided by the ACC a couple years earlier. He was concerned about the BE's future success with the new arrivals. Among other things we talked about his retirement.

No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

“Let’s make believe we’ve decided to expand and I want all eight of you to write on a paper the team or the school that you would want in our league,” Corrigan told the ADs. “Only two schools were mentioned by all the athletic directors: Florida State and Syracuse, one football school, one basketball school.”

Notice that Gene did not reveal what the Presidents and Chancellors told him?

The AD's are not decision makers in the ACC, especially at that time.

The article says Gene asked the AD's to write down the school (singular) you would want to add) If everyone mentioned FSU and Syracuse - that's 16 votes.

Syracuse was never going to the get the votes of the Presidents and Chancellors back then no matter what the AD's wanted. The holes in the article should reveal to you that what Corrigan is doing is telling a whitewashed story - who does Corrigan and the ACC need to protect with this story - told this way to that paper?

Syracuse

I'm sorry you were used several times in the 90's and 00's by factions within the ACC - often you were there to create a false choice and a false choice only.

What does it matter today?

More importantly what does it have to do with TCU or Texas. (Anyone mentioning Baylor and the ACC should be banned for stupidity).

Im not going to go back and forth with you on this. Im correcting your wrong information. It seems to be very hurtful to you that SU actually turned down your precious ACC back in the 90's. You have a very hard time coming to grips with that. In fact,the ACC has been trying to get Syracuse since 1990, but because of politics, it didnt happen until 2013. You are right, it doesnt matter now. But it is what it is.

Actually it's Syracuse folks with all the sensitivity and seemingly with an ability to read something in a news article that is not there. It is amazing how Syracuse folks always know more about the ACC than the people who have been in it for umpteen decades. Syracuse bowed out twice to avoid embarrassment.

It's stuff like this that demonstrates why ESPN had to buy your way into the ACC rather than the league actually wanting you.

(08-24-2017 08:31 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 08:24 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 07:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  No, that's not how it happened back then. A lot of AD's okayed deals and plans that were shattered by Presidents and Chancellors. The AD's made athletic decisions based on their level of expertise, but big decisions were made by the PTB who had the Chancellor's or President's ear. It's a non-Northern or non-Urban decision making style that often seems disjointed and bizarre to the outside - in short, it's Country Club decision making.

The article did say that Corrigan visited every president and AD

“Let’s make believe we’ve decided to expand and I want all eight of you to write on a paper the team or the school that you would want in our league,” Corrigan told the ADs. “Only two schools were mentioned by all the athletic directors: Florida State and Syracuse, one football school, one basketball school.”

Notice that Gene did not reveal what the Presidents and Chancellors told him?

The AD's are not decision makers in the ACC, especially at that time.

The article says Gene asked the AD's to write down the school (singular) you would want to add) If everyone mentioned FSU and Syracuse - that's 16 votes.

Syracuse was never going to the get the votes of the Presidents and Chancellors back then no matter what the AD's wanted. The holes in the article should reveal to you that what Corrigan is doing is telling a whitewashed story - who does Corrigan and the ACC need to protect with this story - told this way to that paper?

Syracuse

I'm sorry you were used several times in the 90's and 00's by factions within the ACC - often you were there to create a false choice and a false choice only.

What does it matter today?

More importantly what does it have to do with TCU or Texas. (Anyone mentioning Baylor and the ACC should be banned for stupidity).

Im not going to go back and forth with you on this. Im correcting your wrong information. It seems to be very hurtful to you that SU actually turned down your precious ACC back in the 90's. You have a very hard time coming to grips with that. In fact,the ACC has been trying to get Syracuse since 1990, but because of politics, it didnt happen until 2013. You are right, it doesnt matter now. But it is what it is.

Actually it's Syracuse folks with all the sensitivity and seemingly with an ability to read something in a news article that is not there. It is amazing how Syracuse folks always know more about the ACC than the people who have been in it for umpteen decades. Syracuse bowed out twice to avoid embarrassment.

It's stuff like this that demonstrates why ESPN had to buy your way into the ACC rather than the league actually wanting you.

If that helps you sleep at night, then sure.

I'm sure there are a lot of fine folks in the bauxite industry, and I'm sure there are a lot of Alcoa shareholders, anyway.

In the event that Texas, Oklahoma, and others start to depart the Big 12 I wonder if the football first programs in the ACC would see it as an opportunity to augment their own league. Maybe WVU and TCU. WVU brings a regional foe in for both Pitt and VT while TCU would be another private school in a big market.

WVU "should" be with VT. That was a classic game they played the first week of the season. Obviously the rivalry with Pitt would be welcomed by both.

Just don't know if there's room at the ACC inn.