Reason that the ACC needs to add Texas Tech
Posted: Thu May 08, 2025 11:36 am
TTU alum and TTU major booster Cody Campbell expected to co-chair with Nick Saban the Presidential commission on CFB.
SMU Fan Site
http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/
Basketball and northeastern thinking have already ruined the ACC since its founding. Now all thinking must be about improving its football wealth and power. Or else just agree that the ACC is not meant to be in the Top Tier of CFB and again go basketball-first and second and third.Dukie wrote:The ACC will not be adding Tortilla U.
What is your evidence that IΓÇÖm doing ΓÇ£asketballΓÇ¥ or ΓÇ£northeasternΓÇ¥ thinking, pal? IΓÇÖm a fifth-generation Texan and IΓÇÖm here as an SMU fan. And for the record, Tech basketball isnΓÇÖt bad.Graceland Tar Heel wrote:Basketball and northeastern thinking have already ruined the ACC since its founding. Now all thinking must be about improving its football wealth and power. Or else just agree that the ACC is not meant to be in the Top Tier of CFB and again go basketball-first and second and third.Dukie wrote:The ACC will not be adding Tortilla U.
Texas Tech has a good deal of what the ACC needs much more of: football-first athletics department that was always that way; very rich donors who will donate HUGE bucks for football; large state university; located in a state that always produces a HUGE amount of football talent; the TV market In which the largest number of its alums live (DFW) may be the most important TV market for football in the country.
Yes, the ACC needs Texas Tech to try to compete head to head with the SEC and BT just like it needs to drop Wake and perhaps a couple others.
100% agreed. If out of expediency, well, hello, Louisville-on-the-Upper-Brazos. Otherwise? Hell no.Mustangs_Maroons wrote:I donΓÇÖt have any knowledge of any of this but seems to me that tech would be one of the last candidates I would think the ACC would want. If itΓÇÖs a function of having the ability to choose, tech would be at the bottom of my list. If itΓÇÖs a function of what may be doable, maybe thatΓÇÖs why itΓÇÖs an option, if at all. However, there are so many other options that to me are much more interesting and also fit the profile of the ACC better.
Dukie wrote:What is your evidence that IΓÇÖm doing ΓÇ£asketballΓÇ¥ or ΓÇ£northeasternΓÇ¥ thinking, pal? IΓÇÖm a fifth-generation Texan and IΓÇÖm here as an SMU fan. And for the record, Tech basketball isnΓÇÖt bad.Graceland Tar Heel wrote:Basketball and northeastern thinking have already ruined the ACC since its founding. Now all thinking must be about improving its football wealth and power. Or else just agree that the ACC is not meant to be in the Top Tier of CFB and again go basketball-first and second and third.Dukie wrote:The ACC will not be adding Tortilla U.
Texas Tech has a good deal of what the ACC needs much more of: football-first athletics department that was always that way; very rich donors who will donate HUGE bucks for football; large state university; located in a state that always produces a HUGE amount of football talent; the TV market In which the largest number of its alums live (DFW) may be the most important TV market for football in the country.
Yes, the ACC needs Texas Tech to try to compete head to head with the SEC and BT just like it needs to drop Wake and perhaps a couple others.
But anyway, lots of schools have a similar profile to what you describe without being in the hard-to-reach armpit that is Lubbock. Tech isnΓÇÖt a flagship school and itΓÇÖs not even the land-grant school. It is not and wonΓÇÖt be a candidate while thereΓÇÖs any chance of prying any of the four actually attractive and flagship schools (sorry, WVU) out of the Big 12.
Pretty sure he's referring to Utah, Colorado, AZ State and AZ if the ACC wants to expand and become the "All Coasts Conference"highlander wrote:What are the 4 attractive flagship schools in the B12 that we should be going after? B12 has several decent schools, but I am having trouble picking 4 "flagship" schools.
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah, but otherwise yes.Charleston Pony wrote:Pretty sure he's referring to Utah, Colorado, AZ State and AZ if the ACC wants to expand and become the "All Coasts Conference"highlander wrote:What are the 4 attractive flagship schools in the B12 that we should be going after? B12 has several decent schools, but I am having trouble picking 4 "flagship" schools.
ah hell I forgot about Kansas. Not to buttress Graceland's argument, but that would be a hell of a basketball conference!Dukie wrote:Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah, but otherwise yes.Charleston Pony wrote:Pretty sure he's referring to Utah, Colorado, AZ State and AZ if the ACC wants to expand and become the "All Coasts Conference"highlander wrote:What are the 4 attractive flagship schools in the B12 that we should be going after? B12 has several decent schools, but I am having trouble picking 4 "flagship" schools.
Selfishly, simply from a travel perspective, all of those sound preferable to Lubbock.Charleston Pony wrote:Pretty sure he's referring to Utah, Colorado, AZ State and AZ if the ACC wants to expand and become the "All Coasts Conference"highlander wrote:What are the 4 attractive flagship schools in the B12 that we should be going after? B12 has several decent schools, but I am having trouble picking 4 "flagship" schools.