PonyFans.com

EastStang wrote:We just need to keep winning. If we do that, good things can happen. Would the Big10 want to expand to Texas? Who would they want? That's why we have to kick in the door.

We keep winning, especially against teams in other Big 4 conferences, then SMU can't be ignored.

The tin-foil-hat part of me tells me there is a concerted effort by the B12, SEC, and B1G to kill the ACC ASAP so they can sift thru the fragments and take what they want. There is a lot of talk about how the ACC is the weakest of the 4, even though all objective metrics point to the B12 being the weakest. I get the feeling the mouthpieces of all 3 conferences are deploying the "speak into existence" strategy.

highlander wrote:The tin-foil-hat part of me tells me there is a concerted effort by the B12, SEC, and B1G to kill the ACC ASAP so they can sift thru the fragments and take what they want. There is a lot of talk about how the ACC is the weakest of the 4, even though all objective metrics point to the B12 being the weakest. I get the feeling the mouthpieces of all 3 conferences are deploying the "speak into existence" strategy.

I don't think that's the case at all. Of course you're hearing the B1G thumping their chest; nobody argues that. And the SEC is trying to convince everyone they're on par with the B1G. Then there's the ACC positioning as a Power 3. And then B12 trying to pitch themselves as good as the ACC and the most aggressive and progressive in the Power 4. To me, the B12 is mostly relevant from the memory of who they lost (Coaches Poll #1, #21 and OK) as opposed to what they are.

Truth is, without guardrails it's going to be every man for himself for the immediate future.

But to address the notion that the ACC and B12 are on par, just look at the recent release of the Coach's Poll.

ACC
#5 Nortre Dame*
#6 Clemson
#10 Miami
#16 SMU
with Louisville, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Duke and Florida State receiving votes

B12
#20 Kansas State
#21 Iowa State
#23 BYU
#24 Texas Tech
with Utah, Baylor, TCU, Colorado, and Kansas receiving votes

So about the same number of respected teams, but the ACC's teams are all generally ranked higher with or without ND.

This is the football forum so maybe the ACC has a slight advantage football wise vs the Big XII based on last year's results. Our games vs Baylor and TCU this year will be telling. TCU also opens against UNC which is another Big XII vs ACC contest that will likely have the same level of interest their opener vs Colorado (with the Sanders & Hunter factor) was 2 years ago.

While the ACC has historically been a dominant basketball conference, the Big XII was clearly the stronger hoops conference last year.

The reality is that the B1G and SEC could likely take their pick of schools from both the Big XII and ACC leaving the rest of the "unchosen" to band together in hopes of having the 3rd strongest conference in college athletics

Charleston Pony wrote:This is the football forum so maybe the ACC has a slight advantage football wise vs the Big XII based on last year's results. Our games vs Baylor and TCU this year will be telling. TCU also opens against UNC which is another Big XII vs ACC contest that will likely have the same level of interest their opener vs Colorado (with the Sanders & Hunter factor) was 2 years ago.

While the ACC has historically been a dominant basketball conference, the Big XII was clearly the stronger hoops conference last year.

The reality is that the B1G and SEC could likely take their pick of schools from both the Big XII and ACC leaving the rest of the "unchosen" to band together in hopes of having the 3rd strongest conference in college athletics

As Dukie pointed out, it's football that drives conference realignment.

highlander wrote:The tin-foil-hat part of me tells me there is a concerted effort by the B12, SEC, and B1G to kill the ACC ASAP so they can sift thru the fragments and take what they want. There is a lot of talk about how the ACC is the weakest of the 4, even though all objective metrics point to the B12 being the weakest. I get the feeling the mouthpieces of all 3 conferences are deploying the "speak into existence" strategy.

And ESOPN is part of that ta;k. In fact, right after ESOPN signed for all of the SEC games, ESPN talking heads began talking up the SEC full-time, often at the direct expense of the ACC. And then soon after that the talk shifted to a whole bunch of just bash the ACC by ESPN folks.

For those of us who paid attention to that and then started reading longtime well known SEC insider internet posters saying that the ESPN is working with the SEC to destroy the ACC so that the SEC can have what it wants from the ACC, we take it seriously.

Hence we recently have had UNC insiders claim 3 different things: 1) that UNC is now looking to leave the ACC for the SEC; 2) that UNC is looking to leave the ACC and will prefer BT as long as BT adds all the ACC schools UNC wants with it; and 3) that UNC would prefer that the ACC survive and get stronger which will require league membership changes.

For the past few years, my assessment has been that UNC wants to save the ACC but knows that for that to happen in this climate, the ACC must make huge changes. having part of the TV distribution be based on TV numbers drawn is one big change. But that will not be enough. The ACC (1) must cut some dead weight in terms of TV viewers, (2) must add schools that are larger with more alums and located in better areas for both football talent production and for love of CFB, and (3) become large enough to weather scheduling storms that SEC desires to harm the ACC. So the ACC needs a national league, teams in all 4 Time Zones, and and a large enough number of teams so that the league basically can avoid any need for OOC games that are seen as Big games. Playing 10 league games will take care of that problem which the SEC is determined to make the ACC face.

Webmaster wrote:

highlander wrote:The tin-foil-hat part of me tells me there is a concerted effort by the B12, SEC, and B1G to kill the ACC ASAP so they can sift thru the fragments and take what they want. There is a lot of talk about how the ACC is the weakest of the 4, even though all objective metrics point to the B12 being the weakest. I get the feeling the mouthpieces of all 3 conferences are deploying the "speak into existence" strategy.

I don't think that's the case at all. Of course you're hearing the B1G thumping their chest; nobody argues that. And the SEC is trying to convince everyone they're on par with the B1G. Then there's the ACC positioning as a Power 3. And then B12 trying to pitch themselves as good as the ACC and the most aggressive and progressive in the Power 4. To me, the B12 is mostly relevant from the memory of who they lost (Coaches Poll #1, #21 and OK) as opposed to what they are.

Truth is, without guardrails it's going to be every man for himself for the immediate future.

But to address the notion that the ACC and B12 are on par, just look at the recent release of the Coach's Poll.

ACC
#5 Nortre Dame*
#6 Clemson
#10 Miami
#16 SMU
with Louisville, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Duke and Florida State receiving votes

B12
#20 Kansas State
#21 Iowa State
#23 BYU
#24 Texas Tech
with Utah, Baylor, TCU, Colorado, and Kansas receiving votes

So about the same number of respected teams, but the ACC's teams are all generally ranked higher with or without ND.

And the ACC schools just mean more. That is what I say that the ACC at full strength and adding from BIg 12 can remain a full equal of SEC, but if the SCC is gutted, nothing the Big 12 would be Abel to add would elevate the Big 12.