First job - do what it takes to keep everyone
If FSU alone leaves, Louisville would be a good #14, IMO (most valuable team available)
If FSU & Clemson both leave, I think the ACC would need to try to add either USF or UCF, IMO; I don't think they'd want to lose 2 Southern teams w/o replacing w/ at least one Florida team (for Miami & Ga Tech sake)

I would consider Rutgers (don't like it though), but I would not consider UConn right now (football already on the way down and basketball may fall also w/o Calhoun)

If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

So you would trade a team that has had 2 losing seasons in the past 20 years for one with 13 losing seasons out of the past 20. Are you really Swofford?

The big problem is Texas. Texas wants a special deal just for them and they don't like to share. That's not been the way in the ACC and so it would require a massive culture shift to accept them as a member. The PAC-12 was also not willing to make this concession and they have even less future expansion options than the ACC does.

From a fan's perspective, and I can understand that you're a fan, catdaddy, it makes a lot of sense to add Texas to the club. On the other hand, though, it's not fans who make decisions on realignment. They are the ones who have to actually worry about the money and worry about its distribution and I think that's a big problem when you start talking about adding Texas.

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com... said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

Um, no! Kansas is only good in basketball most years. I agree that Texas Tech w/o Mike Leach is probably dead weight (and a REALLY long road trip), but to get those other 3 I'd have agreed to take almost anyone... provided that Texas' demands were not totally outrageous (which, for all we know, could have been the case).

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

Texas refused to move forward once they understood that they would not keep any football rights. The ACC was merely being consistent.

(05-23-2012 05:23 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

So you would trade a team that has had 2 losing seasons in the past 20 years for one with 13 losing seasons out of the past 20. Are you really Swofford?

I get that you want to play teams in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and West Texas but I don't. I have no desire to ever play Texas Tech nor Baylor, TCU etc.

(05-23-2012 06:09 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 05:23 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

Quote:Chip Brown of orangebloods.com has been the best source on the subject but admits he was wrong several times last year. Brown will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss expansion but said yesterday that his sources indicate that the ACC could have had Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year but declined.

Imagine if the ACC took that foursome. This would have destroyed the Big 12 and it might have been the ACC to get with the SEC to form their own championship game.

With Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the ACC would never lose Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Instead the ACC would have been one of the four power conferences.

In my first pre-season magazine (Lindy's) the ACC would have No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 8 FSU, No. 13 Clemson, No. 16 OSU, No. 18 Virginia Tech and No. 19 Texas. Six of the top 20 which ties the SEC with six in their top 20.

I even believe that if the ACC would have taken West Virginia then the conference would be stable and no one would leave the league.

Instead Swofford and his bunch turned down Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia and added Pittsburgh and Syracuse. In the same pre-season magazine WVU is ranked 10th, Pittsburgh is 44th and Syracuse is 75th. Pre-season magazines are not the bible of college football but I thought it was OK to use this as a reference in this case.

Simply stated, the reason the ACC is in potential trouble is two fold. First, Clemson, FSU and Miami have not held up their end of the bargain. But most importantly, the ACC ignored the logic of every other conference who understood football is driving force behind expansion and invited two basketball schools.

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

So you would trade a team that has had 2 losing seasons in the past 20 years for one with 13 losing seasons out of the past 20. Are you really Swofford?

I get that you want to play teams in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and West Texas but I don't. I have no desire to ever play Texas Tech nor Baylor, TCU etc.

That's one great response. Doesn't have anything to do with your asinine desire for Kansas over Texas Tech, but whatever.

(05-23-2012 06:15 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 06:09 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 05:23 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:33 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  If the ACC expands again, the track record is they will screw it up.

Mickey Plyler blog

If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

So you would trade a team that has had 2 losing seasons in the past 20 years for one with 13 losing seasons out of the past 20. Are you really Swofford?

I get that you want to play teams in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and West Texas but I don't. I have no desire to ever play Texas Tech nor Baylor, TCU etc.

That's one great response. Doesn't have anything to do with your asinine desire for Kansas over Texas Tech, but whatever.

How about the 500 miles further to get their dumb***

(05-23-2012 06:20 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 06:15 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 06:09 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 05:23 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 04:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  If you'd substitute Kansas for Texas Tech I could get behind the idea. I don't think Texas Tech adds anything. Oklahoma State is at least good at all sports and getting a lot better in football.

So you would trade a team that has had 2 losing seasons in the past 20 years for one with 13 losing seasons out of the past 20. Are you really Swofford?

I get that you want to play teams in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and West Texas but I don't. I have no desire to ever play Texas Tech nor Baylor, TCU etc.

That's one great response. Doesn't have anything to do with your asinine desire for Kansas over Texas Tech, but whatever.

How about the 500 miles further to get their dumb***

Once you get on a plane 500 miles is nothing.

[quote='emeraldcoastwave'

Prepare to have your beat down on Saturday.


[/quote]

Oops, Looks like I was a day early predicting the smack down.