SouthernConfBoy
1st String
Posts: 2,197
Joined: May 2022
Reputation: 190
I Root For: ASU
Location:
|
RE: Is the expansion still an option for the ACC?
(12-17-2022 05:04 PM)random asian guy Wrote: (12-17-2022 03:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: (12-15-2022 10:08 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The ACC could move to 20 and possibly pick up ND in full for football but only by adding a Pacific Wing with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Arizona State. That cuts the throat of Washington State and Oregon State and likely drives Utah, Arizona, Colorado to make a serious decision. I think those three plus Kansas would make a good addition to the SEC because I think some schools in the SEC can't emotionally operate on 6-6, 7-5, or even 8-4 seasons. Someone other than Vandy, South Carolina, and Mizzou need to be the huckleberry.
West side of the SEC becomes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The plains side of the SEC becomes Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, and LSU.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah are better cultural fits overall within the SEC than the Pa, North Carolina, or Virginia schools.
The Pacific side of the ACC could be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and ASU. The midwestern or river valley section could be ND, Pitt, Louisville, GT, and FSU.
Essentially you are getting four annual opponents and can use one of a dozen ways to devise how to schedule the 4-5 to 6 other conference games. You get four division champions to play it off.
This year the AC&P might have had Oregon, ND, WF, and Clemson while the SEC using the above would have gotten something like Utah, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of course, divisions are a lot like old conferences that had 7 to 8 members.
Adding those five PAC programs are the dream scenario for the ACC and ESPN. It would allow the media contract to be reset at a competitive rate. Unfortunately, Fox and the B1G would never let this occur.
I suspect the internal politics is a bigger obstacle. Certain ACC schools may not want the west coast expansion. This is where the leadership matters and I really hope Phillips have vision and leadership to deliver.
Internal Issue that is not disucessed in public Issue 1:
Schools that are so wealthy they can with a snap of the finger add $150,000,000 to the annual budget. This was always a problem with Texas with many of the core ACC schools. Stanford can be a budget buster if they decide to do so. Stanford also presents a certain type of challenge to Duke and UNC that are unaccustomed to facing. Cal's not a problem.
Internal Issue that is not discussed in Public Issue 2:
Schools with high profile boosters calling the shots:
This was also an issue with Texas and would be with Oregon.
Internal Issue threat is not discussed in public issue 3:
Unionism.
California, Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona are not right to work states. Only Washington and Utah are right to work - meaning no mandate to pay unions.
The labor issue is not really about athletes. It's about UNC's, Duke's, Wake's, and UVa's relationship between management and large swaths of non-unionized people in the medical support professions, student support professions, and up and down the procurement/research chain. The athletes are a visible edge that can cut open the issues.
Who sets the agenda and has the final say is the prerogative of the "father of the mill", "the plantation owner", the "first family", etc., etc. A paternalistic way of doing business where those down the line are often given the illusion of their opinions mattering when in fact a very small group at the top makes the decisions based on an idealization that the decision maker and the entity are one and the same.
It's like living under a Clan Chief or some Northern European Duke or Prince. Do what you are told and you will be taken care of - that's the bargain.
|
|