(04-09-2018 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:03 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:25 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Going back to that Straw Poll held by the ACC again, let's say that the ACC doesn't hold that until after Florida St is committed to the SEC or when the ACC calls Florida St they say not interested. If Florida St is off the table then the schools who supported them would have likely backed Miami instead. The schools pushing for Florida St were the pro-expansion schools who wanted in Florida. (I have to think that 2 of the 4 Syracuse votes were from Duke and Maryland who really didn't want to expand at all). The fact that Miami got zero straw poll votes should not be indicative that they were unwanted in the ACC--simply that the schools looking to make a football improving move preferred Florida St over them. I also think the one making the phone calls, Corrigan, would have done everything he could to make a football motivated move. Look how easily he gave up after the Syracuse phone call. He clearly wasn't trying too hard to lure the Orange away.

I think we can almost be certain that if Florida St becomes an SEC school in 1991 then Miami most certainly becomes an ACC school.

The next question is what becomes of the 3 Big East schools. The Big East clearly was hoping for the best case scenario of an arranged FB affiliate relationship with the ACC so that they wouldn't lose them for basketball and wouldn't have to admit WVU, VT, Rutgers, Temple etc into their league either as affiliates or full members. Without Miami, Big East football is a lack luster league. At this point the ACC has the leverage and I think their response to the inquiry about football only membership for the trio is an emphatic No--all or nothing. In 1990 I don't know that those 3 are willing to give up UConn and the then Catholic 5. Maybe they are maybe they aren't. Maybe they need another decade or so to mull it over. Your trade off is great basketball and convenient travel versus great basketball and a football home. Eventually I think the answer becomes the later but that's a decision best made sooner rather than later before the VT program grows and state politics thrust the Hokies upon the ACC.

Anything is possible, but I think this may be a case of perhaps you applying a current mindset of sports to a generation ago. The southern genteel attitude of the ACC at that time would have found Miami and their antics of that time anathema to their tight knit conference. Perhaps they would have held their noses and selected Miami, but if the more palatable FSU was almost sunk, it's hard to imagine Miami truly making it over the finish line at that time and with that grouping of ACC institutions. SU wasn't making it in either at that time, despite being the supposed second choice.

Cheers,
Neil

You are right about the genteel nature of the ACC circa 1990. You are also right that the Canes would have clashed with the decor of the ACC home. But, to a certain extent Syracuse was a better fit for the ACC in '92 than F.S.U. which didn't have the academics that Syracuse had, and which had a sports emphasis quite different from that of the core ACC.

I hope by sports emphasis you don't mean a basketball school. Syracuse at time was far more a football school than a basketball school. I realize we have stunk in football for a decade and a half now, but come on - at that time we were considered a Top 25 football program of all-time by most, though in a slump from the late 60s to mid 80s. It's why I have confidence with Dino Babers we might regain some of our former glory, if no realistic shot of returning to the high regard we were once held in.

Cheers,
Neil

That's not what I meant at all. At the time you were AAU and still had a strong basketball program to go with your football team. Florida State was pretty much just football and baseball and their academic ranking was nowhere near that of Syracuse. By the way did you send a lovely tie to Pat Dye?

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was more focused on the reasons for expansion (changes in the landscape due to football) then the combo aspect of SU over FSU. Still, even with that advantage it's hard to imagine the ACC willingly taken a northern yankee invader. So thankfully for the ACC then and SU back in 2011 FSU accepted and the ACC actual got it done.

And no, I didn't send Pat a lovely tie. Was definitely mad that he didn't go for it though. LOL

Cheers,
Neil

(04-09-2018 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:25 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 08:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Going back to that Straw Poll held by the ACC again, let's say that the ACC doesn't hold that until after Florida St is committed to the SEC or when the ACC calls Florida St they say not interested. If Florida St is off the table then the schools who supported them would have likely backed Miami instead. The schools pushing for Florida St were the pro-expansion schools who wanted in Florida. (I have to think that 2 of the 4 Syracuse votes were from Duke and Maryland who really didn't want to expand at all). The fact that Miami got zero straw poll votes should not be indicative that they were unwanted in the ACC--simply that the schools looking to make a football improving move preferred Florida St over them. I also think the one making the phone calls, Corrigan, would have done everything he could to make a football motivated move. Look how easily he gave up after the Syracuse phone call. He clearly wasn't trying too hard to lure the Orange away.

I think we can almost be certain that if Florida St becomes an SEC school in 1991 then Miami most certainly becomes an ACC school.

The next question is what becomes of the 3 Big East schools. The Big East clearly was hoping for the best case scenario of an arranged FB affiliate relationship with the ACC so that they wouldn't lose them for basketball and wouldn't have to admit WVU, VT, Rutgers, Temple etc into their league either as affiliates or full members. Without Miami, Big East football is a lack luster league. At this point the ACC has the leverage and I think their response to the inquiry about football only membership for the trio is an emphatic No--all or nothing. In 1990 I don't know that those 3 are willing to give up UConn and the then Catholic 5. Maybe they are maybe they aren't. Maybe they need another decade or so to mull it over. Your trade off is great basketball and convenient travel versus great basketball and a football home. Eventually I think the answer becomes the later but that's a decision best made sooner rather than later before the VT program grows and state politics thrust the Hokies upon the ACC.

Anything is possible, but I think this may be a case of perhaps you applying a current mindset of sports to a generation ago. The southern genteel attitude of the ACC at that time would have found Miami and their antics of that time anathema to their tight knit conference. Perhaps they would have held their noses and selected Miami, but if the more palatable FSU was almost sunk, it's hard to imagine Miami truly making it over the finish line at that time and with that grouping of ACC institutions. SU wasn't making it in either at that time, despite being the supposed second choice.

Cheers,
Neil

You are right about the genteel nature of the ACC circa 1990. You are also right that the Canes would have clashed with the decor of the ACC home. But, to a certain extent Syracuse was a better fit for the ACC in '92 than F.S.U. which didn't have the academics that Syracuse had, and which had a sports emphasis quite different from that of the core ACC.

Syracuse checked off a lot of boxes: lacrosse (M&W), soccer (M&W) field hockey. When Georgia Tech came into the ACC it was and still is the only school that doesn't play soccer. (BTW syracuse doesn't have golf or baseball).

Well to answer the OP's question directly, "What would FSU look like had they joined the SEC?" They would look exactly like FSU except their logo would be different and they would be saying,"It just means more!"