Texas and Oklahoma question for the Board

Truth

 

I TOTALLY disagree!!

There was a period after the ACC added Miami and VT where a lot of people argued the ACC was the top conference. I don't think they ever actually were, but that was the perception by many. But most people perceived they were at least in the same league.

But then the Big-10 took Maryland from the ACC, along with Rutgers. That was a HUGE and unexpected hit to the ACC. That was the moment the tide turned. From that point on, the ACC has been totally on the defensive. There is and has been nobody else for the ACC to add that makes them stronger.

The Big-10 had added Penn State (1990), Nebraska (2011) and then took Maryland (from the ACC) and Rutgers (2014) to get to 14 teams. The SEC added Texas A&M and Mizzou in 2012 to get to 14 as well. All those additions happened right under the ACC's nose. They were to weak to do anything about it. The Big-10 and SEC had totally out-maneuvered every other conference.

So DESPERATE to try to keep pace, added Notre Dame (non football only) and 3 metro schools (Syracuse, BC and UL). And due to the threat of more schools leaving, the ACC forced all remaining schools to sign the GOR.

They were in a tough spot. They had to do something, and they thought these new metro schools would give them TV carriage (WRONG), but they didn't and Notre Dame gave them nothing in terms of TV revenue. The ACC totally misread the room. They thought they were making themselves stronger with all their moves, but did the opposite.

The point being that it's not apples and oranges at all. As of the the 1990s, the SEC, Big-10, Pac-12, ACC and Big-12 were all at a similar level. The SEC and Big-10 made proactive and smart decisions. The ACC and Big-12 made weaker and reactive decisions. The Pac-12 was just doomed as soon as Texas and OU backed out. They had no path forward without getting a CST programs (Texas and OU). The Pac-12 was doomed.

To your point, everything was roughly equal between all the conference until the Big-10 and SEC outflanked everybody. The took who they wanted and there was nobody for the Pac-12, ACC or Big-12 to add that mede them stronger.

 

Sorta I guess. Winning and being the best is what puts eyes on the screen.

 

The ACC fancied themselves as a basketball conference for many years. FSU benefited, as did Clemson, from playing in a weak ACC conference. Miami has not won anything, conference or national title, since joining the ACC. Will be much harder to win sports titles in the asEC with new additions of Texas and Oklahoma. Two good men’s and women’s sports programs. Lot of great competition in league play to prepare for professional sports. Exact opposite of ACC where now CA travel will be required

 

You know, I’ve seen fans of other SEC schools complain that Florida’s not really the south. Actually, I’ve always looked at University of Texas as the closest collegiate cognate to University of Florida. They are a large flagship public university in a populous state, are located in a liberal town of a conservative state, have a great all around athletic program that puts football first, and boast accordingly arrogant fans. UF and UT may end up hating each other, but if so, it will be for the same reason Doc Holliday hated Johnny Ringo in Tombstone: because the other school “reminds me of me.”

 

I recognize the similarities in your post, but Texas is just a different animal. Florida and Texas are pretty much nothing alike

EDIT: I always appreciate a good Tombstone reference - thanks!