The most important input is who wants us Fox or ESPN? The conferences ultimately defer to the networks wishes now.
Disappointed. Thought UVA would be more proactive.
4 Likes
To be fair, UNC and NC State have always been against any expansion that reduces the power of the Tobacco Road mafia.
1 Like
1000x yes. Massive inferiority complex
Donât think it matters. Once 4 teams said no, the rest didnât have to say anything because it was dead.
4 Likes
If they went in alphabetical order we only got as far as the Nâs. UVA, VPI, WF never even got a turn
Seriously tho we have no idea, if 4 schools were super vocal against then why even bother discussing further.
3 Likes
This is true. Back in 2002-ish when initially expanding from 9 to 12, they were no-votes as well.
1 Like
Some conflicting information, I thought there were just a few soft yesâ but this implied everyone in favor except the 4 noâs
https://twitter.com/brett_mcmurphy/status/1690167108825481216?s=46&t=uWWx_Dkz2XN_W22Ad1tnww
3 Likes
Cake day @Tpain
There was a report from the Arizona 247 guy, whoâs been on top of all this somehow, that also included Virginia as a no vote. Thatâs where the twitter mentions came from. But that was a couple days ago. Maybe things have changed or he was just misinformed.
10 Likes
Why would we vote yes?
1 Like
Thought the no votes were UNC and Duke.
Weâre both right.
UNC and Duke voted against expansion in 2004. NC State voted against in 2005 (favored ND over BC).
3 Likes
I wonder what âsoft yesâ means in this situation. Were we like, âsure, why notâŠwe donât really care?â Or was the yes contingent on something else happening? Or something else altogether?
1 Like
It wasnât a vote if there were âsoftâ votes one way or another. This is playing nice in the sandbox because thereâs not a lot of incentive not to given the 4 definite noâs.
5 Likes
These ACC meetings were initially framed as âearly exploratoryâ meetings, so Iâm skeptical that they would have gone straight to a formal/final vote as to whether to admit these 3 schools as new members. More likely is they had an informal âfeeling-outâ vote as to whether we should look into the possibility.
Maybe 4 schools were like âabsolutely notâ and another 7 (the âsoft yesesâ) said âIâm not saying yes, but itâs worth at least getting more info.â That would be a far cry from being âonly 1 vote awayâ from adding Stanford and Cal, but itâs easy to see how writers could misinterpret (or deliberately spin) that.
4 Likes
Yea , one vote away shouldnât be called a âsignificant roadblockâ.
âRoadblockâ? Sure.
âSignificantâ to me indicates much more than being one vote away.
1 Like
Agree. I have a feeling we were a ânoâ (original reporting) but then leaked that we were a âsoft yesâ not to piss of Stanford and Cal.
Depends on how firm the ânoâsâ are. If they are unmovable, then âsignificant roadblockâ might not be strong enough.
It would be tough because college football couldnât play a home & home schedule. An unbalanced schedule would be tough in below to determine who would be top and bottom⊠a lot of arguments⊠there would have to be more levels in this model with 9-10 teams in each division.
https://twitter.com/ProjSports/status/1690100965414674433?t=SF8U4aw1YRcrf8QC8uRUbg&s=19
3 Likes