If the ACC offered Texas an invitation, would you be excited?
- Thread starter pandarod
- Start date
Well Panda, allow me to answer for the board - we would be about as excited as if someone told us we had to eat a 50 gallon drum of broken glass soaked in gasoline and set on fire as a herd of elephants deficate into the drum... I mean that sounds exciting doesnt it?
To be real though - no, and hell no. Texas doesnt want any of that trash.
To be real though - no, and hell no. Texas doesnt want any of that trash.
I'm all for an ACC move if Texas keeps LHN with regional coverage and they get ND to become full members, can't stand the idea of the Big 12 expanding and completely hate the idea of going West. Excited wouldn't be the word I would use because the ACC would have to persuade Texas to join with open arms.
I would be good with Texas possibly going to the ACC. It's a better than going to the Pac 12, which would have most road games starting late.
Then you definitely don't want to head West!
Also, for those that want or wanted the PAC, the only way that worked out is if Texas was part of a four team pod which would have kept at least 3 regional teams in the pod in Tech, OSU and OU.
What if you got the same deal ND has. Full home for the non-FB sports, access to bowl games, partial payout but only have to play 5 FB games.
Provides enough scheduling flexibility to keep OU and a couple other closer games. Maybe even bring back the Aggie game, or whatever.
Provides enough scheduling flexibility to keep OU and a couple other closer games. Maybe even bring back the Aggie game, or whatever.
The Acc is a great basketball conference and Texas wants a good team but it lives for football which makes the Acc off the planet with the exception of one or two teams on an annual basis.
Agreed, and I would also like to avoid the possibility of one week in Morgantown and the next week in Provo if we add a BYU. 3 time zones would definitely not be good.
6A high school football in Texas has more appeal to me than the Big 12 Athletic Conference. So there's that.
That is a good way to begin thinking about the possibility. Why? To begin, Texas may already have decided that the Big 12 is not and never again can be the long term solution for the University of Texas.
Second, the SEC is not a viable option for Texas. If Texas is not going to remain the King of a southwestern/plains league, it is going to move up in academic status of conference members. Plus, Texas is not going to 'follow' Aggie anywhere.
Third, while there is no doubt that Texas in the Big Ten would produce the most TV revenue, Texas sports almost cannot afford to be in that midwestern fest of boredom - boring play in every sport. Texas in the BT would mean the SEC would forever preach to TX HS coaches and recruits the dulness of the midwest and the exciting, super sexy nature of SEC football and baseball. Worse, the BT is very much of, for and by Ohio State and Michigan. Penn St was certain it would change that about the BT. What a laugh. PSU is as irrelevant to the BT power duo as Purdue or Minnesota, and it always will be. Texas has no need of BT money, which means the BT risks are far too great for Texas to take if it has other options.
That leaves the Pac and the ACC. No doubt the Pac would love to have Texas and OU. And the Pac would take TTU and Ok St to get the 2 biggies. So Texas could take 3 Big BFFs to the Left Coast. But there are major problems. One is that the Pac is dead last in total national TV viewers in both revenue sports. That means that the Pac is over paid, by a good deal. Eventually, the market will correct that over payment. And there is no sign that the Pac will ever get close to to recovering the TV audience it had 30 and 50 years ago. The current PAC states are all hardcore Pro sports rather than college sports. The NFL returning to LA will reduce SC, the only national name brand in Pac football. And while the Pac has good quality baseball, it has even fewer baseball fans compared the SEC and ACC than it does football and basketball fans. Then there is the matter of time zone. The 8 schools on the coast are 2 hours from Austin's Central Time, and going west is harder on players than going east.
The first reason Texas is, not might be, very interested in the ACC is the ND deal. Texas making the same arrangement could keep the LHN, meaning 6 or 7 Longhorns games per year on the LHN. If the LHN is a big deal to Texas, the ACC is the best move, and that without even taking into account ACC basketball and baseball and other non-revenue sports. Yes, it means cutting ties with the region, and that can hurt in some ways. But a bigger national stage overall is worth it. Getting tied into the East Coast is worth it. Getting tied to Elite universities such as UNC, UVA, Dook, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Miami, Pitt, BC, and Notre Dame is worth it.
The ACC is now the only Power conference with multiple private schools, as the SWC was. Perhaps Texas would like a reset, but on a bigger scale, one that covers the East Coast as well as TX.
Phll Steele's pre-season assessments are that this year the SEC will again be the best football conference and the ACC will be second best.
Just curious
What did the Sooners say when you posted the same question on their board about "getting away from big, mean underachieving Texas"?
The ACC is like the Marines, as well as Gale and Evelle Snoats, in that no man is left behind.
Conference realignment has shown, again and again, that likes attract likes.
The ACC is largely made up of elite private schools, focused undergraduate education, with excellent basketball, that also play some football. The ACC has been plagued with cheating in recent years, and diluted its' academic reputation in the most recent expansion.
Tx is large and excellent state university, with massive research, that is football centric. and although self-interested (see LHN), it is about as honorable as a university can get.
That's not a match.
If Tx was to leave the Big 12, the only really good matches are the PAC or the BIG10.
The ACC is largely made up of elite private schools, focused undergraduate education, with excellent basketball, that also play some football. The ACC has been plagued with cheating in recent years, and diluted its' academic reputation in the most recent expansion.
Tx is large and excellent state university, with massive research, that is football centric. and although self-interested (see LHN), it is about as honorable as a university can get.
That's not a match.
If Tx was to leave the Big 12, the only really good matches are the PAC or the BIG10.
Last edited:
If Phil Steele rates the ACC #2 in the nation there are only two possible explanations.
1. PS is an idiot
2. All the other real football conferences are in a down year.
In an normal year the ACC is at best the #5 conference among the majors and ics closer to the MAC than the SEC or Big 10.
1. PS is an idiot
2. All the other real football conferences are in a down year.
In an normal year the ACC is at best the #5 conference among the majors and ics closer to the MAC than the SEC or Big 10.
I think you forgetting both FSU and Clemson are in the ACC and ND is committed to 5 games with the ACC. I'm interested in what Richt can do at Miami and Fuentes at VaTech.
I would argue that the ACC is better on an annual basis than the Big12 at this point, and right there with the Pac12 for the #3 behind the SEC and the Big10....and the gap to the Big10 is very, very small.
Florida State
Notre Dame (x .5)
Clemson
Miami
I don't see a top 4-5 like that in the Big12, it's pretty similar in the Pac12, and not far off in the Big10
Good points but 2 elite teams and two has-beens do not make a great, or even good, conference. Consider the fact that Wake, B.C., and Virginia are horrible to the point of being an embarrassment and my point stands.
Wake, BC and Virginia aren't any worse than Vanderbilt, and Kentucky.
Plus, you are forgetting Louisville and North Carolina, both of whom will probably be preseason Top 25 teams.
If Miami and Virginia Tech get their act together, then a Top 6 of FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech and North Carolina will be comparable to any other conference.
A dose of reality Schmidty.
1 B.C. beat Maine, Howard and NIU so yeah UK and Vandy would have embarrassed them
2. Wake beat Elon Army and B.C. so ditto for them
3. Louisville lost to Auburn and they were 2-6 in the SEC
You are correct in stating that the top 6 could be decent but you fail to acknowledge that all of these schools except FSU and Clemson might be average or worse
1 B.C. beat Maine, Howard and NIU so yeah UK and Vandy would have embarrassed them
2. Wake beat Elon Army and B.C. so ditto for them
3. Louisville lost to Auburn and they were 2-6 in the SEC
You are correct in stating that the top 6 could be decent but you fail to acknowledge that all of these schools except FSU and Clemson might be average or worse
Louisville beat Texas A&M who went 4-4 as a part of the SEC West. BC had the number 1 Defense Statistically in the Country. They were the worst Offense in the country because of the injury bug that forced them to play a Walk-On 4th stringer at QB. BC lost 19-16 to a very good Notre Dame team in 2015. Most years they win that game if they aren't playing a 4th stringer at QB. Most years BC is a pretty good team. Wake sucks but they are getting better and I think they'll make a big improvement this year.
So, injuries only happened to B.C.? Is a 19-16 loss a win? Did Louisville NOTT lose to Auburn before they upset Texas A&M ? Schmidty, stop making excuses, the ACC never has been and never will be anywhere close to the SEC, Big10 and Pac10 in football. FSU and Clemson are elite but nobody else in the conference is. Fuente could turn VA Tech around quickly but based on track record if Richt couldn't get it done at Georgia he probably won't get it done at UM.
Mark Richt had a 74% winning percentage in 15 years in YOUR conference. Your post lost all credibility when you say he didn't get it done there. Did he win a National Championship there? No. But neither have a lot of other coaches. Richt will turn Miami around. The question is how long it takes. Louisville did lose to Auburn. They also beat Texas A&M and Kentucky. So their SEC record was 2-1. Not bad. As for Fuente, he is a real up and coming coach. The fact that he turned around a program as bad as Memphis was is a real indicator of his coaching and recruiting ability.
74% wasn't good enough at GA. Richt was to some degree a failure at UGA and was more or less invited to leave. He didn't get it doe at UGA and he mat or may not do a good job at Miami. While CMR was at UGA Alabama Auburn UF and LSU all won national Titles and UGA never even made it to the Title Game. That is, by definition, an abject failure.
They wanted to take the next step so they replaced Richt with Kirby Smart. I like Smart and think he'll do a great job. Maybe even better than Richt. My point is that a 74% winning percentage is an average of a 9-3 regular season per year in what you like to call the strongest conference in the country. If that is a failure then you have a lot of failures in the SEC.
It wasn't just his winning percentage. It was the feeling that UGA was falling behind teams like Bama UF and LSU and Richt being unable to stop the trend that ultimately coat him the UGA job.
That should be understandable if the SEC is as good as you claim it to be. Not everybody can be Nick Saban or Les Miles. Even Miles had heat on him late last season and his win percentage at LSU is 79%. Point is, if every program is National Championship or bust you are going to be going through a lot of coaches over the years and not making any progress.
Richt is a good coach. Not an elite coach, but a good coach. There is no denying that.
