Stanford to the ACC? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-21-2023
How about 12 or more wins for the Chateau Montelena Chardonnay and one bowl game for the Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon? :)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Mick - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 10:00 AM)msqueri Wrote: How about 12 or more wins for the Chateau Montelena Chardonnay and one bowl game for the Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon? :)
As long as it's either or and not both... ;)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - PDX Card - 08-21-2023
A pretty forthright explanation from the UNC women's soccer coach as why he doesn't want Stanford in the ACC:
Quote:"Well, I appreciate you allowing me to speak on this because I know our conference commissioner is in favor of this because I read a, a statement that he made where he thought this would be a good idea because obviously these are phenomenal schools academically. Uh but also they have great sports programs. If you look at the Director's Cup, Stanford dominates it. So you're bringing in a truly elite combination of academics and athletics with those two schools. But Stanford extraordinarily, I mean, they're on the top of everyone's academic list and also very high with almost every sports team on campus being in a position to challenge for a national championship. So that would be a wonderful, you know, I guess a feather in the cap of our commissioner. But for us, you know, uh with boots on the ground now, uh this is gonna be horrible for us because then of course, our budgets are extraordinary as it is. And now we would try to add in, you know, flights across the country to play these two schools uh which will be incredibly expensive. And then the fact that now we're exposing the whole country, not that Stanford and Cal don't have a national recruiting platform, of course they do. But if you put those two schools in the ACC, it's going to be so easy for them to recruit nationally. So it'll just benefit them in my opinion, not us.https://www.wralsportsfan.com/dorrance-i-want-cal-and-stanford-to-die-on-the-vine/21011056/
We've built the best women's soccer conference in the country and there's no way I want to share the glory of our conference with two schools that could do a very good job recruiting against us. And so basically, I want Cal and Stanford to die on the vine. I look forward to, you know, seeing Stanford, which is a very difficult school to recruit against. I would look forward to them basically having it be so difficult for them to recruit the elite soccer player. And then we would be in a position to obviously gain those kids and, you know, put the ACC in an even stronger position. So I think in some respects, I can see why, um Jim is interested in this, you know, as our commissioner of the ACC but for us that, you know, have to basically do the work and have to pay for it. No. And these are schools that, you know, yeah, they're in trouble, they're in trouble. It's gonna be harder and harder and harder for them to recruit. And that means that benefits the rest of us in the ACC"
Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 07:36 PM)PDX Card Wrote: A pretty forthright explanation from the UNC women's soccer coach as why he doesn't want Stanford in the ACC:
"Well, I appreciate you allowing me to speak on this because I know our conference commissioner is in favor of this because I read a, a statement that he made where he thought this would be a good idea because obviously these are phenomenal schools academically. Uh but also they have great sports programs. If you look at the director's cup, Stanford dominates it. So you're bringing in a truly elite combination of academics and athletics with those two schools. But Stanford extraordinarily, I mean, they're on the top of everyone's academic list and also very high with almost every sports team on campus being in a position to challenge for a national championship. So that would be a wonderful, you know, I guess a feather in the cap of our commissioner. But for us, you know, uh with boots on the ground now, uh this is gonna be horrible for us because then of course, our budgets are extraordinary as it is. And now we would try to add in, you know, flights across the country to play these two schools uh which will be incredibly expensive. And then the fact that now we're exposing the whole country, not that Stanford and Cal don't have a national recruiting platform, of course they do. But if you put those two schools in the AC C, it's going to be so easy for them to recruit nationally. So it'll just benefit them in my opinion, not us. We've built the best women's soccer conference in the country and there's no way I want to share the glory of our conference with two schools that could do a very good job recruiting against us. And so basically, I want Cal and Stanford to die on the vine. I look forward to, you know, seeing Stanford, which is a very difficult school to recruit against. I would look forward to them basically having it be so difficult for them to recruit the elite soccer player. And then we would be in a position to obviously gain those kids and, you know, put the AC C in an even stronger position. So I think in some respects, I can see why, um Jim is interested in this, you know, as our commissioner of the AC C but for us that, you know, have to basically do the work and have to pay for it. No. And these are schools that, you know, yeah, they're in trouble, they're in trouble. It's gonna be harder and harder and harder for them to recruit. And that means that benefits the rest of us in the AC C"
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/dorrance-i-want-cal-and-stanford-to-die-on-the-vine/21011056/
I infer from her comments that she believes if Stanford is not in a power 5 conference it’s will be easier to recruit against.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - dabigv13 - 08-21-2023
If the women's coach of UNC is thinking this, imagine what all the coaches at SC and UCLA are thinking. They've all got their knives in our backs and they're happy as can be about our plight.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - PDX Card - 08-21-2023
And he feels Stanford being in the ACC hurts UNC recruiting. Stanford to ACC from a non-revenue sport perspective:
- Helps Stanford recruiting
- Hurts UNC recruiting
- Increases travel spending
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Canalejas - 08-21-2023
Inside UCLA's athletics complex they have a display to celebrate all of their championship-winning teams. When I visited years ago one of those championship teams had its name written in gold letters because it was the one that made UCLA reach 100 NCAA team championships before any other school.
Part of me thinks that the UCLA admin was all too ready to use any tactics to get back to their "rightful" place as the most successful department in Division I.
RE: Mudhead - norcard10 - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 07:59 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(08-21-2023, 07:36 PM)PDX Card Wrote: A pretty forthright explanation from the UNC women's soccer coach as why he doesn't want Stanford in the ACC:
"Well, I appreciate you allowing me to speak on this because I know our conference commissioner is in favor of this because I read a, a statement that he made where he thought this would be a good idea because obviously these are phenomenal schools academically. Uh but also they have great sports programs. If you look at the director's cup, Stanford dominates it. So you're bringing in a truly elite combination of academics and athletics with those two schools. But Stanford extraordinarily, I mean, they're on the top of everyone's academic list and also very high with almost every sports team on campus being in a position to challenge for a national championship. So that would be a wonderful, you know, I guess a feather in the cap of our commissioner. But for us, you know, uh with boots on the ground now, uh this is gonna be horrible for us because then of course, our budgets are extraordinary as it is. And now we would try to add in, you know, flights across the country to play these two schools uh which will be incredibly expensive. And then the fact that now we're exposing the whole country, not that Stanford and Cal don't have a national recruiting platform, of course they do. But if you put those two schools in the AC C, it's going to be so easy for them to recruit nationally. So it'll just benefit them in my opinion, not us. We've built the best women's soccer conference in the country and there's no way I want to share the glory of our conference with two schools that could do a very good job recruiting against us. And so basically, I want Cal and Stanford to die on the vine. I look forward to, you know, seeing Stanford, which is a very difficult school to recruit against. I would look forward to them basically having it be so difficult for them to recruit the elite soccer player. And then we would be in a position to obviously gain those kids and, you know, put the AC C in an even stronger position. So I think in some respects, I can see why, um Jim is interested in this, you know, as our commissioner of the AC C but for us that, you know, have to basically do the work and have to pay for it. No. And these are schools that, you know, yeah, they're in trouble, they're in trouble. It's gonna be harder and harder and harder for them to recruit. And that means that benefits the rest of us in the AC C"
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/dorrance-i-want-cal-and-stanford-to-die-on-the-vine/21011056/
I infer from her comments that she believes if Stanford is not in a power 5 conference it’s will be easier to recruit against.
She's not wrong. But damn, UNC can die on a vine themselves.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - oldalum - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 08:24 PM)PDX Card Wrote: And he feels Stanford being in the ACC hurts UNC recruiting. Stanford to ACC from a non-revenue sport perspective:I don't think that's quite what Dorrance is thinking; I think he's being a little disingenuous. He had no problem scheduling home and home non-conference matches against us (and UCLA) in the past--why didn't that hurt his recruiting then? What he really means is that if Stanford doesn't join the ACC we're toast and he'll pick up some of the top players that otherwise would have gone to Stanford--which I fear is true. If we join the ACC it might have a marginal minor effect on recruiting: the travel might hurt us some, but it will become harder for him to win the ACC.
- Helps Stanford recruiting
- Hurts UNC recruiting
- Increases travel spending
BTW his ACC is the premier soccer conference stuff is his typical B.S. It probably was when UNC was winning almost all of the championships, but since 2010 the Pac-12 has won 6 natty's (by 3 different teams) and the ACC 4 (by 2 different teams).
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - crazypaco - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 08:46 PM)oldalum Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:24 PM)PDX Card Wrote: And he feels Stanford being in the ACC hurts UNC recruiting. Stanford to ACC from a non-revenue sport perspective:I don't think that's quite what Dorrance is thinking; I think he's being a little disingenuous. He had no problem scheduling home and home non-conference matches against us (and UCLA) in the past--why didn't that hurt his recruiting then? What he really means is that if Stanford doesn't join the ACC we're toast and he'll pick up some of the top players that otherwise would have gone to Stanford--which I fear is true. If we join the ACC it might have a marginal minor effect on recruiting: the travel might hurt us some, but it will become harder for him to win the ACC.
- Helps Stanford recruiting
- Hurts UNC recruiting
- Increases travel spending
BTW his ACC is the premier soccer conference stuff is his typical B.S. It probably was when UNC was winning almost all of the championships, but since 2010 the Pac-12 has won 6 natty's and the ACC 4.
ACC is absolutely the premier men's and women's soccer conference. 2 men's teams in the College Cup each of the last four seasons...8 appearances by 7 different teams. In the preseason coaches poll, 3 of the top 5 teams and 3 more in the top 25. No conference comes close to that depth. The women's side is even more brutal. While usually led by 21X champ UNC, it currently has 5 of the top 6 slots in the current women's coaches' poll and 2 more teams in the top 25. Stanford will fit right in.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Jamesy - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 09:07 PM)crazypaco Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:46 PM)oldalum Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:24 PM)PDX Card Wrote: And he feels Stanford being in the ACC hurts UNC recruiting. Stanford to ACC from a non-revenue sport perspective:I don't think that's quite what Dorrance is thinking; I think he's being a little disingenuous. He had no problem scheduling home and home non-conference matches against us (and UCLA) in the past--why didn't that hurt his recruiting then? What he really means is that if Stanford doesn't join the ACC we're toast and he'll pick up some of the top players that otherwise would have gone to Stanford--which I fear is true. If we join the ACC it might have a marginal minor effect on recruiting: the travel might hurt us some, but it will become harder for him to win the ACC.
- Helps Stanford recruiting
- Hurts UNC recruiting
- Increases travel spending
BTW his ACC is the premier soccer conference stuff is his typical B.S. It probably was when UNC was winning almost all of the championships, but since 2010 the Pac-12 has won 6 natty's and the ACC 4.
ACC is absolutely the premier men's and women's soccer conference. 2 men's teams in the College Cup each of the last four seasons...8 appearances by 7 different teams. In the preseason coaches poll, 3 of the top 5 teams and 3 more in the top 25. No conference comes close to that depth. The women's side is even more brutal. While usually led by 21X champ UNC, it currently has 5 of the top 6 slots in the current women's coaches' poll and 2 more teams in the top 25. Stanford will fit right in.
Anson Dorrance is an a$$. I'll never forget how his UNC team ended Tierna Davidson's Stanford career three games into her junior year and likely cost Stanford it's 2nd of what would have been 3 straight national titles. While the ACC soccer may have more depth, which I think is still debatable if you look at the last decade as a whole, the PAC-12 has been just as good at the top. Since the last time either the men or women's UNC team has won a national title, the (former) PAC-12 has won 5 women's NCAA titles (Stanford x2, UCLA x 2, USC x 1) compared to 3 (all by FSU) for the ACC, and 3 men's titles (all Stanford) vs 4 for the ACC. I think Dorrance has seen Stanford, UCLA and FSU pass him by, and he wants to use any tool at his disposal to rid himself of one major rival. The College Cup has been hosted in his backyard nearly every other year for the past 40 years and he still hasn't won a title in 11 years. He racked up a bunch of his titles before women's soccer became more predominant nationwide. *prays the woofing gods don't come back to bite me*
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - old spanish trail - 08-21-2023
Agree totally, Jamesy. Dorrance can't stand not being as important as he once was. He should be pilloried for this statement.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - crazypaco - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 09:52 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(08-21-2023, 09:07 PM)crazypaco Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:46 PM)oldalum Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:24 PM)PDX Card Wrote: And he feels Stanford being in the ACC hurts UNC recruiting. Stanford to ACC from a non-revenue sport perspective:I don't think that's quite what Dorrance is thinking; I think he's being a little disingenuous. He had no problem scheduling home and home non-conference matches against us (and UCLA) in the past--why didn't that hurt his recruiting then? What he really means is that if Stanford doesn't join the ACC we're toast and he'll pick up some of the top players that otherwise would have gone to Stanford--which I fear is true. If we join the ACC it might have a marginal minor effect on recruiting: the travel might hurt us some, but it will become harder for him to win the ACC.
- Helps Stanford recruiting
- Hurts UNC recruiting
- Increases travel spending
BTW his ACC is the premier soccer conference stuff is his typical B.S. It probably was when UNC was winning almost all of the championships, but since 2010 the Pac-12 has won 6 natty's and the ACC 4.
ACC is absolutely the premier men's and women's soccer conference. 2 men's teams in the College Cup each of the last four seasons...8 appearances by 7 different teams. In the preseason coaches poll, 3 of the top 5 teams and 3 more in the top 25. No conference comes close to that depth. The women's side is even more brutal. While usually led by 21X champ UNC, it currently has 5 of the top 6 slots in the current women's coaches' poll and 2 more teams in the top 25. Stanford will fit right in.
Anson Dorrance is an a$$. I'll never forget how his UNC team ended Tierna Davidson's Stanford career three games into her junior year and likely cost Stanford it's 2nd of what would have been 3 straight national titles. While the ACC soccer may have more depth, which I think is still debatable if you look at the last decade as a whole, the PAC-12 has been just as good at the top. Since the last time either the men or women's UNC team has won a national title, the (former) PAC-12 has won 5 women's NCAA titles (Stanford x2, UCLA x 2, USC x 1) compared to 3 (all by FSU) for the ACC, and 3 men's titles (all Stanford) vs 4 for the ACC. I think Dorrance has seen Stanford, UCLA and FSU pass him by, and he wants to use any tool at his disposal to rid himself of one major rival. The College Cup has been hosted in his backyard nearly every other year for the past 40 years and he still hasn't won a title in 11 years. He racked up a bunch of his titles before women's soccer became more predominant nationwide. *prays the woofing gods don't come back to bite me*
I don't care about Anson and it clearly isn't just about UNC in the ACC, but comparative conference strength isn't really debatable. 8 men's bids and 10 women's bids last year for the ACC last season. 3 men's and 5 women's teams in the Elite 8....five of eight. The year before, 8 men's and 9 women's bids. If it were just about who had the top team, then you could argue that the WCC was better than the Pac in hoops just because of Gonzaga. We know that isn't true. If Stanford were in the ACC this season, it would be predicted as the 4th best team on the men's side and 6th best on the women's side. The depth in the ACC is unreal.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - pcgoode - 08-22-2023
ACC Presidents meeting on Tuesday…
https://x.com/collegead/status/1693748868721131799?s=46&t=oFX1KkjnCQPU0kO8WF50sg
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - lex24 - 08-22-2023
(08-21-2023, 09:35 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-21-2023, 08:48 AM)msqueri Wrote:Not at all accurate IMO. The first year that they did "just fine" they ran Whittingham's preferred offense. The second year TT tried to change things pretty fundamentally and at that point the wheels came off. They started poorly and he was removed from having any input on the team. The statistics you cite were obtained independent of TTs presence, not because of it. This is demonstrably the case in the second year. I really don't see any way his time at Utah could be described as a "success" in any sense of the word. Your attributing their best national ranking to a coach that was forced out is difficult to understand. If he were essential to the process he certainly would have been retained. He clearly was not, as he had no input the last 2/3 of the season. At the very least, he politically failed totally as he lost the confidence of the HC. You can't do that and be a successful assistant coach.(08-21-2023, 08:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done,Let's not get carried away here. TT failed spectacularly as the OC at Utah. I am sure you know that. It may be argued that the OC job at Utah is a difficult one based on the turnover there, but TT knew about that going in. He and the head coach saw the way ahead differently, and unsurprisingly TT lost that fight. He was basically pushed out of the strategic decision making mid-season and left at the end of the year.
That doesn't mean he was wrong about what he wanted to do, and it doesn't mean he isn't a good coach, and it doesn't mean he won't have success at Stanford. However is just isn't accurate to say "a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done". At the very least he massively misread that situation.
I know that Taylor coached at Utah and that there are some indications the parting may have been mutual but you are mistaken that he failed miserably at Utah. They were #52 and #75 in scoring offense his two years there, which compares to #55 and #60 in the two years preceding him (and #52, #66, #75, and #74 before that). Absolutely absurd to say he failed miserably. He was not what Whittingham wanted. That's the most you can say, that Whittingham did not set Taylor up for success because Whittingham hired something he didn't want, and perhaps that Taylor should not have taken a job that wasn't a perfect fit. But Taylor did just fine. Literally tied for the highest scoring offense rank in seven years in the one year he had "strategic decision making" as you put it.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether being as successful as Whittingham's various OCs before he finally found one that clicked in the brief detour that was the Utah job disqualified from "essentially" succeeding at everything he's done. That was arguably the least successful chapter of Taylor's life and I'd say finishing sixth and ninth in the Pac-12 in scoring offense and matching the best national rank they'd had in seven years is the kind of "failed spectacularly" that makes my point.
When you say "least successful chapter" I certainly agree. IMO in no way was it a success at all, other than perhaps convincing TT that he needed to be a head coach so that he could do what he believed was optimal, not what "the boss" wanted. One often does learn more from failure than success, and I am pretty sure this was the case at Utah.
Not sure how his Utah experience as OC is remotely relevant. First, it was a very bad fit. Whitingham more of a power football run oriented coach. Second, I doubt the players Whitingham recruited fit Taylor’s system. Third and most relevant, Whitingham calls the shots in Utah. Taylor was going to lose any arguments. He won’t have that issue as HC. .
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - DC native - 08-22-2023
Word is that the ACC will not be voting today.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Lorcan - 08-22-2023
It feels like the chance of expansion to the ACC is dead given that it's lingered for this long - but still interesting that no party has come out and said that it's definitively dead.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - oldalum - 08-22-2023
(08-21-2023, 09:52 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Anson Dorrance is an a$$. I'll never forget how his UNC team ended Tierna Davidson's Stanford career three games into her junior year and likely cost Stanford it's 2nd of what would have been 3 straight national titles.And don't forget about Jaye Boissierre, who was injured at UNC as a freshman in our first game in 2014, which cost her that entire season and most of the next. When she finally returned at full strength in 2017, she was a standout midfielder and scored the national championship winning goal. After her injury I concluded we should never schedule UNC for non-conference because of their aggressive propensity to deprive us of our best players.
As for ACC being the premier women's soccer conference based on depth if not nattys, I would point out that the ACC's predicted dominance this year is, at this point, just that (predicted). In 2019 an actual event is that 3 of the 4 semifinal teams were from the Pac-12 (has that ever happened before?), one of whom finished 6th in the conference that season.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - crazypaco - 08-22-2023
(08-22-2023, 09:34 AM)oldalum Wrote:(08-21-2023, 09:52 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Anson Dorrance is an a$$. I'll never forget how his UNC team ended Tierna Davidson's Stanford career three games into her junior year and likely cost Stanford it's 2nd of what would have been 3 straight national titles.And don't forget about Jaye Boissierre, who was injured at UNC as a freshman in our first game in 2014, which cost her that entire season and most of the next. When she finally returned at full strength in 2017, she was a standout midfielder and scored the national championship winning goal. After her injury I concluded we should never schedule UNC for non-conference because of their aggressive propensity to deprive us of our best players.
As for ACC being the premier women's soccer conference based on depth if not nattys, I would point out that the ACC's predicted dominance this year is, at this point, just that (predicted). In 2019 an actual event is that 3 of the 4 semifinal teams were from the Pac-12 (has that ever happened before?), one of whom finished 6th in the conference that season.
Well yes the ACC had 3 women's college cup teams in 2011, 2013, and 2020. On the men's side they did it in 2009 and 2013. The men have had at least 2 teams reach the college cup for the last 4 seasons.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-22-2023
(08-22-2023, 09:25 AM)Lorcan Wrote: It feels like the chance of expansion to the ACC is dead given that it's lingered for this long - but still interesting that no party has come out and said that it's definitively dead.
I'll offer my opinion. The fact there has been no public statement yet is encouraging. If the decision was made to end negotiations with Stanford/Cal there's no reason to not put out an immediate statement. Although I do think if a deal is not made by the end of this week, it's over. I can't see them continuing to talk after the season has started.
From what I read the Presidents meet every Tuesday (remotely) and they are not prepared to vote today.
UPDATE: Meeting cancelled today.
One thing I've noticed there is a multitude of media sites and "influencers" who keep posting the same outdated stuff, change a few words, and make like it's breaking news.
The words of the North Carolina coach reflect more on himself than Stanford or Cal. Will there be some elite prep players watching his rant and think, "This guy is a vindictive, small-minded coach. I don't want to play for his personality."