[Goose]

I think in moving to the ACC we'd be moving to an easier conference than our current conference and one that most people think is stronger. Because it has a perception of being stronger and is much more proximate to football talent hotbeds, it would also significantly improve our recruiting.

Possibly, but there are good counter-arguments. While we would be playing half our games on the East coast, all our home games (and probably most of our out of conference games) would be thousands of miles away to the West. If someone wants to stay home, it wouldn't be that at all. We already do recruit nationally, so it is not as if we never got recruits from that area of the country anyway. No matter how one looks at it, we would be neither fish nor fowl, not a "West coast" school, because we play our conference games in the East. Not an "East coast" school because we play all our home games in the West. Not clear this is an advantage at all IMHO.

We would also be signing ourselves up for more sluggish games (I don't think we can avoid that some of our games would be before 3:30pm Eastern and those games will be challenges), but on balance this would be a fantastic result for our football program. Live to fight another day, enhance program prestige and competitiveness, quietly find an easier conference to compete in than what fell apart around us.

There is certainly an argument to the "live to fight another day" approach. I do think we could do well in the ACC. I do not share your optimism about enhancing our program prestige for exactly the reason you cite. The ACC is "sinking", both in national appeal and in football success. There is a delay factor in the world recognizing this, but it will eventually. The exact same forces that destroyed the PAC-12 are at work, just perhaps a few years behind. Right now, the only thing keeping the "top" schools in the ACC is the GOR. It isn't "healthy". Attaching ourselves to it may just dump is in the same mess in two years. We don't know. Whether that is "worth it" depends a lot on the deal itself. If it was a full, equal membership in the ACC, probably it is worth a try IMO. If we are a "stepchild", or even Rutgers 2.0, I don't think it enhances our prestige at all, quite the opposite. As the deal goes downhill from "full and equal", I become less and less convinced it is worth the risks involved. Let's see what, if anything, we are offered.

[Goose]

I think in moving to the ACC we'd be moving to an easier conference than our current conference and one that most people think is stronger. Because it has a perception of being stronger and is much more proximate to football talent hotbeds, it would also significantly improve our recruiting.

Possibly, but there are good counter-arguments. While we would be playing half our games on the East coast, all our home games (and probably most of our out of conference games) would be thousands of miles away to the West. If someone wants to stay home, it wouldn't be that at all. We already do recruit nationally, so it is not as if we never got recruits from that area of the country anyway. No matter how one looks at it, we would be neither fish nor fowl, not a "West coast" school, because we play our conference games in the East. Not an "East coast" school because we play all our home games in the West. Not clear this is an advantage at all IMHO.

We would also be signing ourselves up for more sluggish games (I don't think we can avoid that some of our games would be before 3:30pm Eastern and those games will be challenges), but on balance this would be a fantastic result for our football program. Live to fight another day, enhance program prestige and competitiveness, quietly find an easier conference to compete in than what fell apart around us.

There is certainly an argument to the "live to fight another day" approach. I do think we could do well in the ACC. I do not share your optimism about enhancing our program prestige for exactly the reason you cite. The ACC is "sinking", both in national appeal and in football success. There is a delay factor in the world recognizing this, but it will eventually. The exact same forces that destroyed the PAC-12 are at work, just perhaps a few years behind. Right now, the only thing keeping the "top" schools in the ACC is the GOR. It isn't "healthy". Attaching ourselves to it may just dump is in the same mess in two years. We don't know. Whether that is "worth it" depends a lot on the deal itself. If it was a full, equal membership in the ACC, probably it is worth a try IMO. If we are a "stepchild", or even Rutgers 2.0, I don't think it enhances our prestige at all, quite the opposite. As the deal goes downhill from "full and equal", I become less and less convinced it is worth the risks involved. Let's see what, if anything, we are offered.