I prefer a 16 team basketball league over a 15 team league and two partial members over one partial.

Obviously, Texas would be a ideal partial member but what if Texas joins another conference and none of the high profile football schools become available?

Would the ACC then consider inviting UConn as a non football member with a clear mutual understanding that UConn can never join the football unless ND joins in full (in other words, forever)?

This will round out the ACC basketball with the 16th member. The payout to each school would not decrease because the football money is not going to be shared. It will probably increase marginally as UConn’s basketball and olympic sports are solid.

As a downside the ACC may have to arrange some football deal with UConn, maybe 3 or 4 games a year. Also I guess BC will not like taking UConn for anything.

Another candidate is Cincy but I don’t know whether they will accepr [/i]this deal. Most likely, UConn will.

ACC membership is contingent on football and revenue. Unfortunately for UConn, its football would hurt the overall ACC profile and would likely always be a bottom dweller. More importantly, the financial profile is not currently accretive. UConn is a flagship institution in a very wealthy state and it’s willing to invest in sports…it has long-term financial potential, but the college athletic landscape would need to change dramatically.

IMO, the ACC doesn’t need a 16th member to balance scheduling for basketball and non-revenue sports. If the ACC did need a 16th member, Cincinnati would still be the better fit…it would be a nice bridge to Louisville and Notre Dame while providing potential football upgrade if needed.

I would go with Georgetown if you wanted to bring in a non football member for spot #16. I like the 16 team concept but than have a rule change to allow conference of 16 to have 2 hoop tournaments at different sites, 8 team setup with 2 auto bids to the ncaa hoop tournament for the winners. Having a conference hoop tournament for 16 teams at one site really isn’t feasible. 8 teams at 1 site Friday-Sunday is great setup. The acc could have an 8 team tournament in Greensboro and NYC

Villanova? Why not "kill" the Big East again?

A partial what?

(06-26-2021 08:14 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  I prefer a 16 team basketball league over a 15 team league and two partial members over one partial.

Obviously, Texas would be a ideal partial member but what if Texas joins another conference and none of the high profile football schools become available?

Would the ACC then consider inviting UConn as a non football member with a clear mutual understanding that UConn can never join the football unless ND joins in full (in other words, forever)?

This will round out the ACC basketball with the 16th member. The payout to each school would not decrease because the football money is not going to be shared. It will probably increase marginally as UConn’s basketball and olympic sports are solid.

As a downside the ACC may have to arrange some football deal with UConn, maybe 3 or 4 games a year. Also I guess BC will not like taking UConn for anything.

Another candidate is Cincy but I don’t know whether they will accepr [/i]this deal. Most likely, UConn will.

No way on UConn, not now, not ever. They would devalue an already beleaguered football product and we don't need help in basketball. I'm usually not a vindictive person, but senator Blumenthal forever poisoned that well when he was the state AG.

They had Blumenthal the political hack sue the ACC over expansion.

Their greatest football achievement was back dooring into the Fiesta Bowl at 7-5 so they could get waxed in a blow out.

Their fans don't appreciate football. Neither does the administration.

Partial membership is dumb and only works in highly unusual circumstances or highly unusual dance partners. Even then the nature of partial membership means that not everybody is fully invested and fully committed and shares the same long term vision.

Football is 80%+ of the revenue. UCONN represents a marginal improvement in < 20% of the revenue at the expense of consuming 1/16 of all revenue.

The Hartford Whalers exist solely as an alternate uniform for the Carolina Hurricanes. Apply that historical sports lesson correctly.

Randy Edsall collected a $10,000 bonus for UCONN football being mentioned in this thread.

The answers is NO. They will never be in the discussion for the ACC already has that market area what ever you want to call covered with Syracuse and Boston College. Those two schools wouldn’t vote them in, and who else would? No end of discussion.

(06-26-2021 10:00 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  ACC membership is contingent on football and revenue. Unfortunately for UConn, its football would hurt the overall ACC profile and would likely always be a bottom dweller. More importantly, the financial profile is not currently accretive. UConn is a flagship institution in a very wealthy state and it’s willing to invest in sports…it has long-term financial potential, but the college athletic landscape would need to change dramatically.

IMO, the ACC doesn’t need a 16th member to balance scheduling for basketball and non-revenue sports. If the ACC did need a 16th member, Cincinnati would still be the better fit…it would be a nice bridge to Louisville and Notre Dame while providing potential football upgrade if needed.

I guess the 15 team basketball works out OK so far.

The current setup is actually pretty good for many non revenue sports. The ACC has 14 baseball teams, 12 softball teams, 12 mens soccer teams, 14 womens soccer team, and 8 women’s lacrosse teams. The only odd numbered setups are men’s lacrosse (5), women’s field hockey (7) and women’s volley ball (15).

(06-27-2021 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  They had Blumenthal the political hack sue the ACC over expansion.

Their greatest football achievement was back dooring into the Fiesta Bowl at 7-5 so they could get waxed in a blow out.

Their fans don't appreciate football. Neither does the administration.

Partial membership is dumb and only works in highly unusual circumstances or highly unusual dance partners. Even then the nature of partial membership means that not everybody is fully invested and fully committed and shares the same long term vision.

Football is 80%+ of the revenue. UCONN represents a marginal improvement in < 20% of the revenue at the expense of consuming 1/16 of all revenue.

The Hartford Whalers exist solely as an alternate uniform for the Carolina Hurricanes. Apply that historical sports lesson correctly.

Randy Edsall collected a $10,000 bonus for UCONN football being mentioned in this thread.

He did not just sue. He went after ACC office folks in their personal capacity and into their personal lives. When gentlemen go to court in NC or VA over a business matter they do not bring up each others concubines, hoes, and ask about how they **** someone on their own board. That's a level of scorched earth that would get you shot in the night 75-100 years ago. Blumenthal crossed that line not just with the ACC staff but with some of the schools staff that had been leant out to the ACC. He did it to women who had been attached to NC State and Clemson as well as men that had been attached to Duke and UNC but were not 100% ACC staff. His proposed interrogatories have all been destroyed - not answers, questions destroyed.

He broke the Country Club code of conduct.
He broke the male business code of conduct.
He broke the male hanky panky dime dropping code of conduct.

Give it 75 years and maybe everyone who knows will be dead.

Major conferences do not add schools for basketball. Here's a recap of schools in and UCONN's predicament and when they began to play a P-5 football schedule which is to say when they began playing 5-6 major schools a year:

Clemson/UNC/NCSU/WF/GT/UVa/VT/Pitt - all started by the 1900's.

U of Miami - 1939-1940 (Safe in ACC)
U of Houston - 1951-1952 (ACC or B12 only possible move up)
Florida State - 1954-1956 (Safe in ACC)
U of Memphis - 1977-1979 (Weak graduate academics keep it out of consideration for the B12 or SEC)
U of Louisville - 1980-1981 (Safe in ACC despite weak academics - they got the last ticket)
Cincinnati - 1982-1983 (Louisville took their spot because they waited too long despite acceptable academics)
East Carolina - 1986-1987 (Never a chance in Hell as the 5th school in NC with SC, NC State, UNC, and UVa sitting on top of them)
UCF - 1997-1999 (Late to the party and still regarded as the worlds largest yet competent community college)
U of Connecticut - 2002-2003 (Damn late to the party - egged on by crazy AD's)
USF - 2005-2006 (Very late to the party despite decent academics)

It's very difficult to jump in line regarding major college football.

There is just one program east of the Mississippi that has the chance and the luck to bolt higher and that is App State. The reason is that they occupy a unfilled niche in far western NC and can provide a foil in NE Tenn (or the State of Franklin as you will) to the rum runners in Knoxville - a foil that ETSU can not be). The climate and academic potential of ASU to grow beyond what it is now is rivaled only by UNC-Charlotte. Even then, it would take a steady, successful, and expensive 30 year climb that may lead to nowhere.

(06-27-2021 08:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Major conferences do not add schools for basketball. Here's a recap of schools in and UCONN's predicament and when they began to play a P-5 football schedule which is to say when they began playing 5-6 major schools a year:

Clemson/UNC/NCSU/WF/GT/UVa/VT/Pitt - all started by the 1900's.

U of Miami - 1939-1940 (Safe in ACC)
U of Houston - 1951-1952 (ACC or B12 only possible move up)
Florida State - 1954-1956 (Safe in ACC)
U of Memphis - 1977-1979 (Weak graduate academics keep it out of consideration for the B12 or SEC)
U of Louisville - 1980-1981 (Safe in ACC despite weak academics - they got the last ticket)
Cincinnati - 1982-1983 (Louisville took their spot because they waited too long despite acceptable academics)
East Carolina - 1986-1987 (Never a chance in Hell as the 5th school in NC with SC, NC State, UNC, and UVa sitting on top of them)
UCF - 1997-1999 (Late to the party and still regarded as the worlds largest yet competent community college)
U of Connecticut - 2002-2003 (Damn late to the party - egged on by crazy AD's)
USF - 2005-2006 (Very late to the party despite decent academics)

It's very difficult to jump in line regarding major college football.

There is just one program east of the Mississippi that has the chance and the luck to bolt higher and that is App State. The reason is that they occupy a unfilled niche in far western NC and can provide a foil in NE Tenn (or the State of Franklin as you will) to the rum runners in Knoxville - a foil that ETSU can not be). The climate and academic potential of ASU to grow beyond what it is now is rivaled only by UNC-Charlotte. Even then, it would take a steady, successful, and expensive 30 year climb that may lead to nowhere.

UConn was definitely late in the game. Or the conference realignment started too early for them. They were supposed to join the original Big East Football Conference. If the raid came 10 years late, they may have been able to establish their football program and had a better chance to get picked.

I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

ACC has fallen behind way to far in revenue game. This would make it much worse.

(06-28-2021 02:49 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

Thank you. This is interesting.

* Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

* Connecticut’s number is even worse. Mass is slightly better but it’s understandable why BC wants to monopolize the New England area given the small talent pool to share.

* I didn’t know Kentucky is not that fertile. Where did Louisville get their talents from? From Ohio?

* Speaking of Ohio, I see why most people prefer Cincy over UConn. IMO, the new playoff expansion will greatly help a top team in the AAC as the AAC champ will mostly likely participate the playoff almost every year. As the old Big East provided a platform for the national exposure to VT and Louisville, if Cincy keeps winning the AAC, they will become a prime target for the next expansion.

* This means the playoff expansion is a bad news for UConn if they still want to get picked by a P5 conference. An AAC champ would have a better chance than UConn.

* By the way, Mr. Blumenthal, now a US senator for Connecticut, came out against the playoff expansion along with a fellow Connecticut Senator.

(06-29-2021 10:41 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  * Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

Miami is a-ok with that. GT would prefer somebody in the southeast region. There is an appreciable drop in ticket sales against Cuse and BC. There's no history to fall back on with the NE ACC, and locality is the only other proxy (and the primary one) for generating fan interest.

(06-29-2021 10:41 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 02:49 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

Thank you. This is interesting.

* Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

* Connecticut’s number is even worse. Mass is slightly better but it’s understandable why BC wants to monopolize the New England area given the small talent pool to share.

* I didn’t know Kentucky is not that fertile. Where did Louisville get their talents from? From Ohio?

* Speaking of Ohio, I see why most people prefer Cincy over UConn. IMO, the new playoff expansion will greatly help a top team in the AAC as the AAC champ will mostly likely participate the playoff almost every year. As the old Big East provided a platform for the national exposure to VT and Louisville, if Cincy keeps winning the AAC, they will become a prime target for the next expansion.

* This means the playoff expansion is a bad news for UConn if they still want to get picked by a P5 conference. An AAC champ would have a better chance than UConn.

* By the way, Mr. Blumenthal, now a US senator for Connecticut, came out against the playoff expansion along with a fellow Connecticut Senator.

In no way am I campaigning for UConn, but I would like to warn of some misleading information that's floating about... recruiting rankings can fool you. Notice where NFL players come from: California, Texas, and Florida, but also Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York:



In other words, they may not be highly-ranked coming out of high school, but in the end these northern-born players prove what they are: great football players. Ask yourself: is BC really good at turning 3-star players into NFL draft picks, or were those players simply underrated by the recruiting services?

(06-29-2021 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:41 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 02:49 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

Thank you. This is interesting.

* Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

* Connecticut’s number is even worse. Mass is slightly better but it’s understandable why BC wants to monopolize the New England area given the small talent pool to share.

* I didn’t know Kentucky is not that fertile. Where did Louisville get their talents from? From Ohio?

* Speaking of Ohio, I see why most people prefer Cincy over UConn. IMO, the new playoff expansion will greatly help a top team in the AAC as the AAC champ will mostly likely participate the playoff almost every year. As the old Big East provided a platform for the national exposure to VT and Louisville, if Cincy keeps winning the AAC, they will become a prime target for the next expansion.

* This means the playoff expansion is a bad news for UConn if they still want to get picked by a P5 conference. An AAC champ would have a better chance than UConn.

* By the way, Mr. Blumenthal, now a US senator for Connecticut, came out against the playoff expansion along with a fellow Connecticut Senator.

In no way am I campaigning for UConn, but I would like to warn of some misleading information that's floating about... recruiting rankings can fool you. Notice where NFL players come from: California, Texas, and Florida, but also Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York:



In other words, they may not be highly-ranked coming out of high school, but in the end these northern-born players prove what they are: great football players. Ask yourself: is BC really good at turning 3-star players into NFL draft picks, or were those players simply underrated by the recruiting services?

Where did you get your unattributed map?

Is this where they live now or where they were born over the last 100 years?

The NFL says otherwise:

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Sain...ers--.aspx

According to the NFL this is where modern/current players are from:

1. Florida 212
2. Cal 191
3. Texas 179
4. Ga 120
5. Ohio 82
6 Bama 62
7. La 59, Pa 59
9, NJ 52, SC 52
11. NC 49
12. Ill 41
13. Michigan 40
14. Virginia 38

But this is according to the NFL - obviously your list is where the live now.

(06-29-2021 12:17 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:41 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 02:49 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

Thank you. This is interesting.

* Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

* Connecticut’s number is even worse. Mass is slightly better but it’s understandable why BC wants to monopolize the New England area given the small talent pool to share.

* I didn’t know Kentucky is not that fertile. Where did Louisville get their talents from? From Ohio?

* Speaking of Ohio, I see why most people prefer Cincy over UConn. IMO, the new playoff expansion will greatly help a top team in the AAC as the AAC champ will mostly likely participate the playoff almost every year. As the old Big East provided a platform for the national exposure to VT and Louisville, if Cincy keeps winning the AAC, they will become a prime target for the next expansion.

* This means the playoff expansion is a bad news for UConn if they still want to get picked by a P5 conference. An AAC champ would have a better chance than UConn.

* By the way, Mr. Blumenthal, now a US senator for Connecticut, came out against the playoff expansion along with a fellow Connecticut Senator.

In no way am I campaigning for UConn, but I would like to warn of some misleading information that's floating about... recruiting rankings can fool you. Notice where NFL players come from: California, Texas, and Florida, but also Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York:



In other words, they may not be highly-ranked coming out of high school, but in the end these northern-born players prove what they are: great football players. Ask yourself: is BC really good at turning 3-star players into NFL draft picks, or were those players simply underrated by the recruiting services?

Where did you get your unattributed map?

Is this where they live now or where they were born over the last 100 years?

The NFL says otherwise:

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Sain...ers--.aspx

According to the NFL this is where modern/current players are from:

1. Florida 212
2. Cal 191
3. Texas 179
4. Ga 120
5. Ohio 82
6 Bama 62
7. La 59, Pa 59
9, NJ 52, SC 52
11. NC 49
12. Ill 41
13. Michigan 40
14. Virginia 38

But this is according to the NFL - obviously your list is where the live now.

It purports to be where they were born - although TBH I don't remember how old the data was (it's actually changing fast over the last decade; CA is no longer #1, etc.) I see that your data is from 2017.

Your data makes the ACC footprint look better, TBH.

(06-29-2021 02:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 12:17 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:41 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 02:49 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I crunched a few numbers. Here are the player ranking averages of the top 10 recruits in various ACC states. It gives you and idea of the fishing stock.

1. Florida 28
2. Georgia 54
3. Va 134
4, NC 184, PA 184
6. SC 305
7. Kentucky 533
8. Mass 622
9. NY 711

Here are some nearby comparisons:

Ohio 145
MD 237
New Jersey 345
Connecticut 811
Maine - 1 kid ranked above 1000
VT none
NH none

Now this a weak year for NC and a strong one for VA, but the point is that it's bad business allowing someone with little to no home recruiting area to join your conference just to fish in your pond.

Essentially if you draw a line from Bergen NJ and go toward the Catskills then the Hudson River then Lake Champlain - there are almost zero recruits east of that imaginary line. You might get one or two out of NYC, and a half dozen at most from Mass.

Thank you. This is interesting.

* Northeast and NY’s numbers are pretty bad. No wonder Syracuse wants to play Miami and GT more often.

* Connecticut’s number is even worse. Mass is slightly better but it’s understandable why BC wants to monopolize the New England area given the small talent pool to share.

* I didn’t know Kentucky is not that fertile. Where did Louisville get their talents from? From Ohio?

* Speaking of Ohio, I see why most people prefer Cincy over UConn. IMO, the new playoff expansion will greatly help a top team in the AAC as the AAC champ will mostly likely participate the playoff almost every year. As the old Big East provided a platform for the national exposure to VT and Louisville, if Cincy keeps winning the AAC, they will become a prime target for the next expansion.

* This means the playoff expansion is a bad news for UConn if they still want to get picked by a P5 conference. An AAC champ would have a better chance than UConn.

* By the way, Mr. Blumenthal, now a US senator for Connecticut, came out against the playoff expansion along with a fellow Connecticut Senator.

In no way am I campaigning for UConn, but I would like to warn of some misleading information that's floating about... recruiting rankings can fool you. Notice where NFL players come from: California, Texas, and Florida, but also Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York:



In other words, they may not be highly-ranked coming out of high school, but in the end these northern-born players prove what they are: great football players. Ask yourself: is BC really good at turning 3-star players into NFL draft picks, or were those players simply underrated by the recruiting services?

Where did you get your unattributed map?

Is this where they live now or where they were born over the last 100 years?

The NFL says otherwise:

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Sain...ers--.aspx

According to the NFL this is where modern/current players are from:

1. Florida 212
2. Cal 191
3. Texas 179
4. Ga 120
5. Ohio 82
6 Bama 62
7. La 59, Pa 59
9, NJ 52, SC 52
11. NC 49
12. Ill 41
13. Michigan 40
14. Virginia 38

But this is according to the NFL - obviously your list is where the live now.

It purports to be where they were born - although TBH I don't remember how old the data was (it's actually changing fast over the last decade; CA is no longer #1, etc.) I see that your data is from 2017.

Your data makes the ACC footprint look better, TBH.

I don't see it purporting to say anything. All I find is dead link from 2012. Obviously what you posted is wrong or it's pertaining to all NFL players over the last 100 years. Why don't you tell us where you got it.

I don't have a doctorate in Demography per se, but the ONLY way your map is accurate is for it to represent where NFL players list their current addresses or it's a map of the origins of players over the last 80-100 years.