As we all know, the ACC was a spin off group consisting of the bigger SoCon schools. They left behind the small private schools, WVU, and VT.

Looking back, I think this had a negative impact on the ACC’s trajectory. I think WVU and VT would have joined Clemson, South Carolina, and Maryland in their fight against the deemphasis of football and it would have kept South Carolina in the fold.

Georgia Tech comes on board as their 11th member in the late 70s.

In the early 90s they secure Florida St or Miami as their 12th or possibly both plus someone like BC or Syracuse to complete a compliment of 14.

Without having to bounce back and combat a reputation as “just a basketball conference”, the ACC performs better in the BCS era and on in into the CFP-4 and viewed as being more on par with Big 10 and SEC than as an M-level conference.

(03-08-2024 08:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As we all know, the ACC was a spin off group consisting of the bigger SoCon schools. They left behind the small private schools, WVU, and VT.

Looking back, I think this had a negative impact on the ACC’s trajectory. I think WVU and VT would have joined Clemson, South Carolina, and Maryland in their fight against the deemphasis of football and it would have kept South Carolina in the fold.

Georgia Tech comes on board as their 11th member in the late 70s.

In the early 90s they secure Florida St or Miami as their 12th or possibly both plus someone like BC or Syracuse to complete a compliment of 14.

Without having to bounce back and combat a reputation as “just a basketball conference”, the ACC performs better in the BCS era and on in into the CFP-4 and viewed as being more on par with Big 10 and SEC than as an M-level conference.

I don’t think so. The ACC still eventually got Miami and Virginia Tech at the peak of their football powers even after the league had the perception of being a “basketball conference” and those schools (especially Miami) are way more valuable than West Virginia. Adding back in South Carolina and incorporating West Virginia wouldn’t have done anything. The only thing that would have changed the state of the ACC was essentially swap core properties with the SEC - having Florida, Georgia and Alabama instead of their current lineup - and that was totally outside of their control.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a big believer in the course correction theory of time travel (most famously seen in “Lost”) when it comes to conference realignment where, “Whatever happened, *happened*.” That is, even if you go back into the past and tried to change an ACC decision as you’ve proposed (or have Penn State join Big East in the 1980s or have Texas do something else in 1990), there would be a “course correction” in the timeline and we’d end up back in the same place that we are now with the Big Ten and SEC consolidating the biggest brands. Maybe it would have changed the interim timing of some moves (like *when* Penn State joined the Big Ten or Texas joined the SEC), but those moves would have eventually happened no matter how you tried to change this past.

(This is different than the butterfly effect theory of time travel, most famously deployed in the first Back of the Future movie, where even changing the slightest thing in the past would change the future. There is also the multiple timeline theory of time travel where changing something in the past creates a different parallel timeline, which we see in the Marvel universe with Avengers: End Game and the Loki series. I don’t think either apply to conference realignment. You could change anything in the past, but we were destined to have the consolidation of brands that we see now.)

Yes and Yes!!

The original ACC was a scheduling alliance of common schools. William & Mary was considered, Penn was as well, but they balked over the de facto segregation policy.

VPI was not a common opponent for these seven schools. Here is its 1952 football schedule, the year prior to the founding of the ACC:

09/13: MARSHALL
09/20: at Davidson
09/27: at The Citadel
10/04: VIRGINIA
10/11: at Alabama
10/18: GEORGE WASHINGTON
10/25: at Washington and Lee
11/01: at Richmond
11/08: WILLIAM & MARY
11/15: at West Virginia
11/22: VMI

Here is the 1952 West Virginia schedule:

09/27: FURMAN
10/04: WAYNESBURG
10/11: PENN ST.
10/18: vs. Washington and Lee
10/25: at Pitt
11/01: GEORGE WASHINGTON
11/08: VMI
11/15: VPI
11/22: at South Carolina

The parent before SoCon also had Chattanooga in it as well. Since the ACC don't have a Tennessee team back then, Chattanooga could have been one they could have picked up as well. Memphis State at the time was not around in any conferences.

Yes it was.

(03-08-2024 09:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 08:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As we all know, the ACC was a spin off group consisting of the bigger SoCon schools. They left behind the small private schools, WVU, and VT.

Looking back, I think this had a negative impact on the ACC’s trajectory. I think WVU and VT would have joined Clemson, South Carolina, and Maryland in their fight against the deemphasis of football and it would have kept South Carolina in the fold.

Georgia Tech comes on board as their 11th member in the late 70s.

In the early 90s they secure Florida St or Miami as their 12th or possibly both plus someone like BC or Syracuse to complete a compliment of 14.

Without having to bounce back and combat a reputation as “just a basketball conference”, the ACC performs better in the BCS era and on in into the CFP-4 and viewed as being more on par with Big 10 and SEC than as an M-level conference.

I don’t think so. The ACC still eventually got Miami and Virginia Tech at the peak of their football powers even after the league had the perception of being a “basketball conference” and those schools (especially Miami) are way more valuable than West Virginia. Adding back in South Carolina and incorporating West Virginia wouldn’t have done anything. The only thing that would have changed the state of the ACC was essentially swap core properties with the SEC - having Florida, Georgia and Alabama instead of their current lineup - and that was totally outside of their control.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a big believer in the course correction theory of time travel (most famously seen in “Lost”) when it comes to conference realignment where, “Whatever happened, *happened*.” That is, even if you go back into the past and tried to change an ACC decision as you’ve proposed (or have Penn State join Big East in the 1980s or have Texas do something else in 1990), there would be a “course correction” in the timeline and we’d end up back in the same place that we are now with the Big Ten and SEC consolidating the biggest brands. Maybe it would have changed the interim timing of some moves (like *when* Penn State joined the Big Ten or Texas joined the SEC), but those moves would have eventually happened no matter how you tried to change this past.

(This is different than the butterfly effect theory of time travel, most famously deployed in the first Back of the Future movie, where even changing the slightest thing in the past would change the future. There is also the multiple timeline theory of time travel where changing something in the past creates a different parallel timeline, which we see in the Marvel universe with Avengers: End Game and the Loki series. I don’t think either apply to conference realignment. You could change anything in the past, but we were destined to have the consolidation of brands that we see now.)

Folks underestimate just how valuable the truly elite football brands (Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan) are for today’s media contracts. The further down the pecking order of brand value, the more that schools are actually interchangeable.

With regards to the theory of including VPI in the original lineup, it misses the rationale as to why the ACC was originally formed. IIRC, VPI voted to sanction teams that participated in bowl games. The football schools (led by Clemson, Duke and Maryland) wanted to grow the sport. For whatever reason, the VPI administrators in the early 1950s were not fully backing football.

https://greensboro.com/southern-acc-spli...89b8b.html

WVU’s standing in the ACC is much more complex. WVU’s rivals are Pitt, Penn State, VT and Maryland. Only Maryland was in the original group that formed the ACC…at that time, Maryland was more focused in convincing UVa to join a football-first breakaway.

Yes, but even bigger mistake was including Duke and Wake. Four teams in North Carolina warped the history of the ACC from the start. It's the reason the ACC lost South Carolina and Maryland, and why it didn't get Penn State (before the Big Ten invited them).

It would've resulted in a MUCH stronger ACC football conference.

see also: Alternate History: 1951-2017 on ACCFootballRx

(03-08-2024 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yes, but even bigger mistake was including Duke and Wake. Four teams in North Carolina warped the history of the ACC from the start. It's the reason the ACC lost South Carolina and Maryland, and why it didn't get Penn State (before the Big Ten invited them).

Duke was a dominant football program in the 1950s: six of the first ten ACC championships resided in Durham and eight Top 20 finishes from 1953 through 1962.

(03-08-2024 09:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 08:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As we all know, the ACC was a spin off group consisting of the bigger SoCon schools. They left behind the small private schools, WVU, and VT.

Looking back, I think this had a negative impact on the ACC’s trajectory. I think WVU and VT would have joined Clemson, South Carolina, and Maryland in their fight against the deemphasis of football and it would have kept South Carolina in the fold.

Georgia Tech comes on board as their 11th member in the late 70s.

In the early 90s they secure Florida St or Miami as their 12th or possibly both plus someone like BC or Syracuse to complete a compliment of 14.

Without having to bounce back and combat a reputation as “just a basketball conference”, the ACC performs better in the BCS era and on in into the CFP-4 and viewed as being more on par with Big 10 and SEC than as an M-level conference.

I don’t think so. The ACC still eventually got Miami and Virginia Tech at the peak of their football powers even after the league had the perception of being a “basketball conference” and those schools (especially Miami) are way more valuable than West Virginia. Adding back in South Carolina and incorporating West Virginia wouldn’t have done anything. The only thing that would have changed the state of the ACC was essentially swap core properties with the SEC - having Florida, Georgia and Alabama instead of their current lineup - and that was totally outside of their control.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a big believer in the course correction theory of time travel (most famously seen in “Lost”) when it comes to conference realignment where, “Whatever happened, *happened*.” That is, even if you go back into the past and tried to change an ACC decision as you’ve proposed (or have Penn State join Big East in the 1980s or have Texas do something else in 1990), there would be a “course correction” in the timeline and we’d end up back in the same place that we are now with the Big Ten and SEC consolidating the biggest brands. Maybe it would have changed the interim timing of some moves (like *when* Penn State joined the Big Ten or Texas joined the SEC), but those moves would have eventually happened no matter how you tried to change this past.

(This is different than the butterfly effect theory of time travel, most famously deployed in the first Back of the Future movie, where even changing the slightest thing in the past would change the future. There is also the multiple timeline theory of time travel where changing something in the past creates a different parallel timeline, which we see in the Marvel universe with Avengers: End Game and the Loki series. I don’t think either apply to conference realignment. You could change anything in the past, but we were destined to have the consolidation of brands that we see now.)

Had the ACC been more forward thinking and brought Penn State aboard when they were rejected by the Big East, I think there is a compelling argument the conference would be making "P2" money today. This is assuming the conference also brings in Florida State and eventually Miami, but the clincher would be Texas—which we know there were discussions over a decade ago.

A conference with Penn State, Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Texas would not be under fire today. I could see them also bringing in some combination of Syracuse, Pitt, and Virginia Tech as well.

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yes, but even bigger mistake was including Duke and Wake. Four teams in North Carolina warped the history of the ACC from the start. It's the reason the ACC lost South Carolina and Maryland, and why it didn't get Penn State (before the Big Ten invited them).

Duke was a dominant football program in the 1950s: six of the first ten ACC championships resided in Durham and eight Top 20 finishes from 1953 through 1962.

Correct. This is an often overlooked fact. They were essentially USC of NC.

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  Had the ACC been more forward thinking and brought Penn State aboard when they were rejected by the Big East, I think there is a compelling argument the conference would be making "P2" money today. This is assuming the conference also brings in Florida State and eventually Miami, but the clincher would be Texas—which we know there were discussions over a decade ago.

A conference with Penn State, Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Texas would not be under fire today. I could see them also bringing in some combination of Syracuse, Pitt, and Virginia Tech as well.

This. The idea that we were always destined to get to this exact spot seems far-fetched to me. Yes, consolidation was always likely to happen. And, yes, the SEC and B1G due to being big state schools with lots of T-shirt fans were always likely to be at the top. However, there were potential moves like this that could very well have happened that could have put 1 or 2 more conferences at that level today.

(03-08-2024 01:31 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  Had the ACC been more forward thinking and brought Penn State aboard when they were rejected by the Big East, I think there is a compelling argument the conference would be making "P2" money today. This is assuming the conference also brings in Florida State and eventually Miami, but the clincher would be Texas—which we know there were discussions over a decade ago.

A conference with Penn State, Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Texas would not be under fire today. I could see them also bringing in some combination of Syracuse, Pitt, and Virginia Tech as well.

This. The idea that we were always destined to get to this exact spot seems far-fetched to me. Yes, consolidation was always likely to happen. And, yes, the SEC and B1G due to being big state schools with lots of T-shirt fans were always likely to be at the top. However, there were potential moves like this that could very well have happened that could have put 1 or 2 more conferences at that level today.

Right. The same could be said for the Pac getting Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Kansas etc

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 09:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 08:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As we all know, the ACC was a spin off group consisting of the bigger SoCon schools. They left behind the small private schools, WVU, and VT.

Looking back, I think this had a negative impact on the ACC’s trajectory. I think WVU and VT would have joined Clemson, South Carolina, and Maryland in their fight against the deemphasis of football and it would have kept South Carolina in the fold.

Georgia Tech comes on board as their 11th member in the late 70s.

In the early 90s they secure Florida St or Miami as their 12th or possibly both plus someone like BC or Syracuse to complete a compliment of 14.

Without having to bounce back and combat a reputation as “just a basketball conference”, the ACC performs better in the BCS era and on in into the CFP-4 and viewed as being more on par with Big 10 and SEC than as an M-level conference.

I don’t think so. The ACC still eventually got Miami and Virginia Tech at the peak of their football powers even after the league had the perception of being a “basketball conference” and those schools (especially Miami) are way more valuable than West Virginia. Adding back in South Carolina and incorporating West Virginia wouldn’t have done anything. The only thing that would have changed the state of the ACC was essentially swap core properties with the SEC - having Florida, Georgia and Alabama instead of their current lineup - and that was totally outside of their control.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a big believer in the course correction theory of time travel (most famously seen in “Lost”) when it comes to conference realignment where, “Whatever happened, *happened*.” That is, even if you go back into the past and tried to change an ACC decision as you’ve proposed (or have Penn State join Big East in the 1980s or have Texas do something else in 1990), there would be a “course correction” in the timeline and we’d end up back in the same place that we are now with the Big Ten and SEC consolidating the biggest brands. Maybe it would have changed the interim timing of some moves (like *when* Penn State joined the Big Ten or Texas joined the SEC), but those moves would have eventually happened no matter how you tried to change this past.

(This is different than the butterfly effect theory of time travel, most famously deployed in the first Back of the Future movie, where even changing the slightest thing in the past would change the future. There is also the multiple timeline theory of time travel where changing something in the past creates a different parallel timeline, which we see in the Marvel universe with Avengers: End Game and the Loki series. I don’t think either apply to conference realignment. You could change anything in the past, but we were destined to have the consolidation of brands that we see now.)

Had the ACC been more forward thinking and brought Penn State aboard when they were rejected by the Big East, I think there is a compelling argument the conference would be making "P2" money today. This is assuming the conference also brings in Florida State and eventually Miami, but the clincher would be Texas—which we know there were discussions over a decade ago.

A conference with Penn State, Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Texas would not be under fire today. I could see them also bringing in some combination of Syracuse, Pitt, and Virginia Tech as well.

Penn St certainly would have been a game changer and dramatically raised the league profile. Beating the Big 10 to the northeast would have added a lot of tv sets. Pitt, Syracuse, and BC probably come into play too.

Texas is probably a stretch

The bigger mistakes was the de-emphasizing of football in the 50s. Duke and UMd were actually pretty good. Forward thinkers would have seen Wake Forest with limited potential. If they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, maybe they try harder to elevate their football to the point they get taken by the ACC some day.

In more recent times, when the SEC went to 12 teams and added a conference championship game, that would have been the time to move to 12. The ACC bawked for another 12 years. Just imagine having Miami in their prime with VT, WVU and FSU. The ACC would have built up a lot of football clout in those years.

(03-08-2024 01:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yes, but even bigger mistake was including Duke and Wake. Four teams in North Carolina warped the history of the ACC from the start. It's the reason the ACC lost South Carolina and Maryland, and why it didn't get Penn State (before the Big Ten invited them).

Duke was a dominant football program in the 1950s: six of the first ten ACC championships resided in Durham and eight Top 20 finishes from 1953 through 1962.

Correct. This is an often overlooked fact. They were essentially USC of NC.

If the ACC had some of the less, shall we say, elitist schools (like WVU and VT) from the start, I don't think Duke would've WANTED to join.

(03-08-2024 03:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The bigger mistakes was the de-emphasizing of football in the 50s. Duke and UMd were actually pretty good. Forward thinkers would have seen Wake Forest with limited potential. If they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, maybe they try harder to elevate their football to the point they get taken by the ACC some day.

In more recent times, when the SEC went to 12 teams and added a conference championship game, that would have been the time to move to 12. The ACC bawked for another 12 years. Just imagine having Miami in their prime with VT, WVU and FSU. The ACC would have built up a lot of football clout in those years.

As soon as the ACC had Duke + UVa as members, de-emphasis of football became a likely outcome.

(03-08-2024 03:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yes, but even bigger mistake was including Duke and Wake. Four teams in North Carolina warped the history of the ACC from the start. It's the reason the ACC lost South Carolina and Maryland, and why it didn't get Penn State (before the Big Ten invited them).

Duke was a dominant football program in the 1950s: six of the first ten ACC championships resided in Durham and eight Top 20 finishes from 1953 through 1962.

Correct. This is an often overlooked fact. They were essentially USC of NC.

If the ACC had some of the less, shall we say, elitist schools (like WVU and VT) from the start, I don't think Duke would've WANTED to join.

(03-08-2024 03:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The bigger mistakes was the de-emphasizing of football in the 50s. Duke and UMd were actually pretty good. Forward thinkers would have seen Wake Forest with limited potential. If they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, maybe they try harder to elevate their football to the point they get taken by the ACC some day.

In more recent times, when the SEC went to 12 teams and added a conference championship game, that would have been the time to move to 12. The ACC bawked for another 12 years. Just imagine having Miami in their prime with VT, WVU and FSU. The ACC would have built up a lot of football clout in those years.

As soon as the ACC had Duke + UVa as members, de-emphasis of football became a likely outcome.

Eh??? Disagree

You need to call a spade a spade. The intent of the 1964 800-SAT minimum was Jim Crow segregation. Duke and UVa leaders may have hidden the meaning by stating that de-emphasizing football could occur, but that was not the underlying driver of the ACC rule. By 1970, the fight over segregation was over (at least for university leaders), and the rule was changed.

Unfortunately, Duke basketball further excelled in the late 1960s (kudos to Vic Bubbas??). Even after more enlightened thinking on racial issues, Duke had fully transformed itself into a basketball school. Maybe it was easier to be a basketball brand than a football brand.

(03-08-2024 01:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  Had the ACC been more forward thinking and brought Penn State aboard when they were rejected by the Big East, I think there is a compelling argument the conference would be making "P2" money today. This is assuming the conference also brings in Florida State and eventually Miami, but the clincher would be Texas—which we know there were discussions over a decade ago.

Penn State would have been resistant to the ACC because Paterno favored the control he had over the schedule (and by extension, the Northeast) as an independent. Once the CFA started negotiating its own contracts, he relented. I don't remember the ACC seriously looking in that direction.

Were Paterno merely the coach and not also the AD (and the one who picked his own successor), Penn State might have been admitted to the Big East, but he made a lot of enemies in the region and the feeling was he would jump at the first offer, which he eventually did.

(03-08-2024 03:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The bigger mistakes was the de-emphasizing of football in the 50s. Duke and UMd were actually pretty good. Forward thinkers would have seen Wake Forest with limited potential. If they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, maybe they try harder to elevate their football to the point they get taken by the ACC some day.

In more recent times, when the SEC went to 12 teams and added a conference championship game, that would have been the time to move to 12. The ACC bawked for another 12 years. Just imagine having Miami in their prime with VT, WVU and FSU. The ACC would have built up a lot of football clout in those years.

It was the 60’s. The ACC had an Orange Bowl tie-in vs the Big 7 (8) in the 50’s.

This was back when the SoCon was rejecting Florida State and Wofford’s applications for membership.

(03-08-2024 10:15 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The original ACC was a scheduling alliance of common schools. William & Mary was considered, Penn was as well, but they balked over the de facto segregation policy.

VPI was not a common opponent for these seven schools. Here is its 1952 football schedule, the year prior to the founding of the ACC:

09/13: MARSHALL
09/20: at Davidson
09/27: at The Citadel
10/04: VIRGINIA
10/11: at Alabama
10/18: GEORGE WASHINGTON
10/25: at Washington and Lee
11/01: at Richmond
11/08: WILLIAM & MARY
11/15: at West Virginia
11/22: VMI

Here is the 1952 West Virginia schedule:

09/27: FURMAN
10/04: WAYNESBURG
10/11: PENN ST.
10/18: vs. Washington and Lee
10/25: at Pitt
11/01: GEORGE WASHINGTON
11/08: VMI
11/15: VPI
11/22: at South Carolina

I don’t recall W&M being considered because they had just been busted for a cheating scandal. Their football team was great and there were some shadowy reasons as to why. What I read was VPI was the alternative to UVa.

Penn was mentioned in one article as far as I could tell along with an ambitious plan to welcome in Georgia and Florida.