Speculation: FSU and Clemson to big 12?

[rkell87]

I think recently that has been true.

I'm not trying to say the ACC is better than the Big 12 in football...especially not in the very recent years.

I just think because many of us live in Big 12 country we may forget traditons elsewhere.

The current Big 12 members have 3 National Titles since 1980.

The ACC has 9.

Florida St is on the fast track back to again being a powerhouse, imo.
I would almost predict that they will win their next title before UT....and I'm a bit of a UT fan.
OU should be tough this year, so I'll not go that far.

The current ACC has four different teams that have won or shared a national championship since 1980, and five that have played for one.

The current Big 12 has two.

More recently (last 15 years) each conference has two National Champs.

But I do agree that if you ranked the two conferences together, OU and UT would be 1-2 for sure right now (based on the last 5-10 years body of work). After those two, I think the national appeal of the Big 12 seriously drops off.


One last bit of trivia:
Number of players drafted
SEC...42
Big 10... 41
ACC...31
Pac 12...28
Big12...26
Big East...12

If the Big 12 gets a power like FSU, that would really tilt the balance their way. I'd say they would be second behind the SEC at that point.

I assume by drafted you mean this year? big 12 only has ten members this year, ACC has twelve. If we had our 2 previous members(Nebraska, Colorado) we would have had 32. it only stands to reason that the more schools you have, the more players drafted

 

[The30YardSlant]

here is an article from chip brown about it, he isnt the most reliable when predicting these things, but this is not about that, he just lays out the advantages to a jump to the big 12. he states what some have talked about, the third tier rights, and apparently FSU is dealing with some money problems in their athletic department.

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1363940

look, the ACC is a fine conference, but lets get real, when it comes to football, the big 12 is MUCH more marketable, and if they were able to get FSU and, say, louisville, they would be able to get a lot more money in a new contract than the 16.6 or whatever that it would come out to right now, plus FSU could launch their own network.

Florida State's resume over the past 30 years is just as if not more impressive than that of OU and Texas. Aside from their recent slide into mediocrity, it can be argued that Miami is THE most successful program of the last 30 years and both of those programs are top 10 on a national scale in terms of relevancy. So both conferences have two elite, national level programs.

After that, it's basically Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Boston College versus West Virginia, OSU, Tech, KSU and TCU. I'm sorry, but I'll take the ACC.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Miami is notorious for its players being paid by boosters.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Miami is notorious for its players being paid by boosters.

So is OU, what's your point?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Florida State's resume over the past 30 years is just as if not more impressive than that of OU and Texas. Aside from their recent slide into mediocrity, it can be argued that Miami is THE most successful program of the last 30 years and both of those programs are top 10 on a national scale in terms of relevancy. So both conferences have two elite, national level programs.

After that, it's basically Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Boston College versus West Virginia, OSU, Tech, KSU and TCU. I'm sorry, but I'll take the ACC.

FSU does not agree.

 

[The30YardSlant]

FSU does not agree.

Only according to those who stand to gain from them coming to the Big XII.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Florida State's resume over the past 30 years is just as if not more impressive than that of OU and Texas. Aside from their recent slide into mediocrity, it can be argued that Miami is THE most successful program of the last 30 years and both of those programs are top 10 on a national scale in terms of relevancy. So both conferences have two elite, national level programs.

After that, it's basically Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Boston College versus West Virginia, OSU, Tech, KSU and TCU. I'm sorry, but I'll take the ACC.

You would take the ACC because you have a Big12 bias now. Pretty simple really.

Especially considering that last years ACC champion got their butts handed to them in embarrassing fashion on national tv by the newest member of the big 12.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The ACC blows goats.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I doubt that this would happen. I think they would also be missing out on how much travel Clemson and FSU fans would have to do to go to away games compared to now with more ACC teams in their vicinity. Nothing would quite surprise me now, but I think these schools would be better off if they noticed that gas and airline prices are going up, not down.






YR

 

[The30YardSlant]

The ACC blows goats.

Objectively speaking, I don't see how anyone can say that. There are seven teams in the Big XII would will/could struggle to get to 7 wins this year. A few will do it by default simply because someone HAS to win games like ISU/KU, Tech/Baylor, etc.

Outside of OU, West Virginia and a young Texas team that is trying to resurge, the Big XII looks pretty impotent next year. Baylor and OSU lost everything that made them good last year, TCU has to prove they can win consistently against better competition than the MWC and Tech, Kansas and ISU are all going to suck. Kansas State is the wildcard but they will struggle to repeat their 8 wins by less than a TD feat again, they could have just as easily won 4-5 games last season.

 

[The30YardSlant]

You would take the ACC because you have a Big12 bias now. Pretty simple really.

Leaving something behind for greener pastures does not typically make one hateful towards the former.

Especially considering that last years ACC champion got their butts handed to them in embarrassing fashion on national tv by the newest member of the big 12.

And nobody is arguing that West Viriginia is a very solid program right now. I'm saying that almost everyone else isnt.

 

[DFWJC]

My reasoning for FSU not leaving the ACC didn't have much to do with the current, short-sighted view of what the two conferences football programs are doing. Even then, I don't see much seperation going forward.

I just think, because ACC football has been down for the last several years, many are forgetting the bigger picture.

When is the last time a team wanted to leave the ACC? Overall, it's a very, very good conference.

Like I said:

• in the last 30 years, the current Big 12 has 3 national titles in football, while the ACC has 9.
• 2 current Big 12 teams have won titles in the modern era, while FOUR ACC teams have (and 5 have played for one).
• and the ACC has a far better academic rep, ranking number one in the USA, just ahead of the Big 10.
• playing all of your opponents in the same time zone helps too
• and before you diss basketball contributions, keep in mind that teams like UNC and Duke have basketball profit (not revenue, profit) of 17 million.
• the current Big 12 no longer has Nebraska, Texas AM, Colorado, Missouri. --And the foundation of the Big 12 comes from two conferences that also were splintered. Maybe it will change, but for 20 years now this conference has been in constant flux.
• The Big 12 and ACC both have three titles in the last 15 years.
• The ACC has only added solid schools and programs, never lost any in that time frame.
• Even before the Big 12 lost those teams, the ACC had more players in the NFL , by a large margin, than the Big 12. That goes for average per team as well as overall.

The point is, it's not so straight forward. It seems to me that there is no real long-term advantage in FSU and Clemson leaving the ACC unless it was for the SEC.

I have lived in Big 12 country for 20 years and pull for the Big12 (at least in general), but I just don't see it as a better place for FSU or Clemson.

But I'm not deciding for them....and there are plenty of rumors going on about it as we speak.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Leaving something behind for greener pastures does not typically make one hateful towards the former.

I don't think you can say that they are greener. At this point, all you can say is that you hope they become greener at some point. You haven't done anything in the SEC yet. You can't claim victory or "Greener Pastures" as you put it until you actually prove they are greener. At this point, you may well be leaving for greener pastures only to find that you are the newest Cow Paddy in the Pasture.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I don't think you can say that they are greener.

Yeah I can. Will we struggle for a while in the SEC? Probably, but we were struggling the Big XII. Now we'll be struggling with more money, stability and exposure. Winning right off the bat isnt the sole determining issue here.

Yes, we'd have a better chance to compete in the Big XII next season than in the SEC. That doesn't mean we arent better off as a school and athletic program. Even if the results don't change for a while on the football field, it's better to serve in heaven than rule in hell.

 

[DFWJC]

My wife is an FSU grad, so she wouldn't mind getting to see her team more often if they did join the Big 12.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My reasoning for FSU not leaving the ACC didn't have much to do with the current, short-sighted view of what the two conferences football programs are doing. Even then, I don't see much seperation going forward.

I just think, because ACC football has been down for the last several years, many are forgetting the bigger picture.

When is the last time a team wanted to leave the ACC? Overall, it's a very, very good conference.

Like I said:

• in the last 30 years, the current Big 12 has 3 national titles in football, while the ACC has 9.
• 2 current Big 12 teams have won titles in the modern era, while FOUR ACC teams have (and 5 have played for one).
• and the ACC has a far better academic rep, ranking number one in the USA, just ahead of the Big 10.
• playing all of your opponents in the same time zone helps too
• and before you diss basketball contributions, keep in mind that teams like UNC and Duke have basketball profit (not revenue, profit) of 17 million.
• the current Big 12 no longer has Nebraska, Texas AM, Colorado, Missouri. --And the foundation of the Big 12 comes from two conferences that also were splintered. Maybe it will change, but for 20 years now this conference has been in constant flux.
• The Big 12 and ACC both have three titles in the last 15 years.
• The ACC has only added solid schools and programs, never lost any in that time frame.
• Even before the Big 12 lost those teams, the ACC had more players in the NFL , by a large margin, than the Big 12. That goes for average per team as well as overall.

The point is, it's not so straight forward. It seems to me that there is no real long-term advantage in FSU and Clemson leaving the ACC unless it was for the SEC.

South Carolina.

The problem is that it's not what has happened in the past as much as it is what will happen in the future. I don't ever see the ACC as a Football Conference. They are Basketball to me and there is nothing wrong with that but it is what it is. Conferences are changing right now because of the proposed playoff system. If you are not in a Football Power Conference, the prevailing opinion is that you will be n the outside looking in. Now, today is really not what is being considered. It's where these conferences will be tomorrow and I think that favors the Big 12. They are Football and they are going to continue to try and support that direction. The ACC, I don't think so.

I think it's important to remember that the drive to leave the ACC for another conference isn't coming from the Big 12. It's coming from FSU. They see their future as limited in the ACC from a Football perspective apparently.

 

[The30YardSlant]

South Carolina.

The problem is that it's not what has happened in the past as much as it is what will happen in the future. I don't ever see the ACC as a Football Conference. They are Basketball to me and there is nothing wrong with that but it is what it is. Conferences are changing right now because of the proposed playoff system. If you are not in a Football Power Conference, the prevailing opinion is that you will be n the outside looking in. Now, today is really not what is being considered. It's where these conferences will be tomorrow and I think that favors the Big 12. They are Football and they are going to continue to try and support that direction. The ACC, I don't think so.

I think it's important to remember that the drive to leave the ACC for another conference isn't coming from the Big 12. It's coming from FSU. They see their future as limited in the ACC from a Football perspective apparently.

By your criteria I don't see how the Big XII is anymore of a "football conference" than the ACC. Outside of Florida State, Miami, Texas and OU it's a bunch of historically second and third tier programs that make up the two leagues. Clemson, Virginia Tech and WVU are are all solid, but then there's a large grouping of very average (OSU, Tech, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, etc.) to very bad (ISU, Kansas, Duke, Wake Forest).

IMO, the ACC actually has four very viable programs while the Big XII has only three until TCU proves they can handle this level of competition on a consistent basis.

 

[DFWJC]

South Carolina.

The problem is that it's not what has happened in the past as much as it is what will happen in the future. I don't ever see the ACC as a Football Conference. They are Basketball to me and there is nothing wrong with that but it is what it is. Conferences are changing right now because of the proposed playoff system. If you are not in a Football Power Conference, the prevailing opinion is that you will be n the outside looking in. Now, today is really not what is being considered. It's where these conferences will be tomorrow and I think that favors the Big 12. They are Football and they are going to continue to try and support that direction. The ACC, I don't think so.

I think it's important to remember that the drive to leave the ACC for another conference isn't coming from the Big 12. It's coming from FSU. They see their future as limited in the ACC from a Football perspective apparently.

Yeah, SC; it was rhetorical. In other words, it's been 40 years since anyone left...or 20+ years before the Big 12 even existed.

I too will always think of the ACC as being a basketball powerhouse conference. But that's just perception because I am older than some here and recall the day before even FSU, Miami, and VT where in the conference The reality is that they have as many or more historically good football programs as the Big 12 does.

Anyway, what is the Big 12 exactly? Who says they are a football conference? Them? They've only been around since the 90s and 1/3 of the teams that were with them then are now gone.

Anyway, it really makes no difference to me what FSU and Clemson do.
People are saying FSU is the source, but I have yet to see evidence of that other than rumors. I know they do need upgraded facilities.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

By your criteria I don't see how the Big XII is anymore of a "football conference" than the ACC. Outside of Florida State, Miami, Texas and OU it's a bunch of historically second and third tier programs that make up the two leagues. Clemson, Virginia Tech and WVU are are all solid, but then there's a large grouping of very average (OSU, Tech, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, etc.) to very bad (ISU, Kansas, Duke, Wake Forest).

IMO, the ACC actually has four very viable programs while the Big XII has only three until TCU proves they can handle this level of competition on a consistent basis.

I think that the question of what has been accomplished in each conference is a bit nebulous. If you look at the ACC, they will never be a Football Conference. If we look at the ACC as a whole, they absolutely have a good base of Football schools but the question going forward is, will they be focused on Football going forward. Again, I believe that the focus of the ACC will never be Football. However, the Focus of the Big 12 will be Football for the foreseeable future. I just really believe that the ACC is going to have issues getting into a Super Conference situation because that is really about Football and not about Basketball. It's not where they have been or even where they are today. It's about putting yourself in a Conference that is going to allow you to be considered for one of those 4 or 6 teams (or whatever the number happens to be) that get to the playoffs. Will the ACC expand with an eye towards putting football first? I don't think so. The Big 12 will.

As far as TCU is concerned, they are 47-5 over the past 4 seasons and they aren't just playing scrubs. Baylor, BYU, Boise last year, Wisconsin, Utah, BYU, Baylor and Oregon St. in 10. Virginia, Clemson, BYU, Utah and Boise in 09. Boise, Utah, BYU, OU and Stanford in 08. They are plenty good enough to play in any conference in America IMO. I think they can be considered as a top Football Program.

I would also say that WV is a program that could play in any conference in the Country. They are 70-20 since 05 with Bowl wins over Clemson, UNC, OU and GTech since 05.

I think that if we looked at Conference Strength over the last few years, the Big 12 would be ranked much better then would the ACC. I also don't know that I would list Miami with Texas, OU and FSU. Since 2006, Miami is only 41-35 with a bowl record of 2-3. Each of their two bowl wins were against Nevada. To me, they are not a power house football program any longer.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, SC; it was rhetorical. In other words, it's been 40 years since anyone left...or 20+ years before the Big 12 even existed.

I too will always think of the ACC as being a basketball powerhouse conference. But that's just perception because I am older than some here and recall the day before even FSU, Miami, and VT where in the conference The reality is that they have as many or more historically good football programs as the Big 12 does.

Anyway, what is the Big 12 exactly? Who says they are a football conference? Them? They've only been around since the 90s and 1/3 of the teams that were with them then are now gone.

Anyway, it really makes no difference to me what FSU and Clemson do.
People are saying FSU is the source, but I have yet to see evidence of that other than rumors. I know they do need upgraded facilities.

If I look at the ACC, I really only see VaTech as the loan school with a good football program over the last several years. In 2006, they were 11-3 but they lost to GTech, Georgia and BC. They beat Cincy but they were 8-5 that year and lost to every good team on their schedule.

In 2007, they were 11-3 but again, they lost to LSU, BC and Kansas. They beat Miami and FSU who were both terrible. FSU lost to Kentucky in a Bowl Game that year.

2008, again a good record 10-4 but lost to ECarolina, FSU, BC and Miami. None of those teams were very good but they did have good wins against BC, Cincy and Nebraska. Going to say that even though the record was worse, this was a better VaTech team.

2009- 3 with loses against Bama, GTech and UNC. Beat a 6 loss Tennessee team in the Bowl game, Miami and Nebraska.

2010 11-3. Lost to Boise, James Madison and Stanford in the Bowl. Beat FSU, NCSt. and that's really about it.

2011 11-3. Again, Lost to Clemson twice, lost to Michigan in a Bowl.

They are, IMO, the best football program in the ACC but to be honest, they don't play a tough schedule. 10 of those games are gimmie games every year. It's hard to know how good they really are.

Even Florida State has not been a great team since 2006. They are recruiting much better and I do believe that they are on the rise but honestly, they are between a 6 and 4 loss team consistently since 2006.

I just don't see the ACC as anywhere near the quality of Football Conference as the Big 12 and I think Power Rankins prove that.