The ACC does have some schools with excellent academic reputations, but that doesn't mean the conference is necessarily a better cultural fit for Cal. When it was created in 1953, it was a conference of southern schools. In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East and caused its eventual collapse. The northern schools were added then and in 201…
The ACC does have some schools with excellent academic reputations, but that doesn't mean the conference is necessarily a better cultural fit for Cal. When it was created in 1953, it was a conference of southern schools. In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East and caused its eventual collapse. The northern schools were added then and in 2013 - 2014, but the conference retains much of its southern feel. If you visit the campuses of Clemson, FSU, UNC, or even UVA, you'll feel a different vibe compared to Cal or Stanford. There's nothing wrong with this, but people shouldn't think that the ACC is a better cultural fit to the Big-12. It's the wrong criterion to use.
Matters of academics and culture (or the welfare of 'student athletes') are window dressing that hold little, if any, weight in the discussions of those making the decision.
“Culture” is not really a big deal. Does anyone think that Washington State or Arizona State had a “culture” similar to Cal or Stanford? No.
The academic rankings are probably the real reason Stanford (in particular) does not want to be in the Big 12, and they seem to mostly be driving this bus. The ACC is academically strong enough to be palatable.
I think people constantly confound selectivity and quality. Washington State and ASU have great faculty. ASU is all business nowadays and does not hire any tenure track faculty that are not major grant pullers. Sure, the student body might be slightly different, but they have some good students too (they created things like honors colleges to try and attract some of the better students). The situation was different in the 1980s.
There are nuanced differences between Western "Southerners" versus Eastern "Southerners." Honestly, if we're talking plain ordinary daily life, accents, and general P.O.V., the more western, the more kindred to us. So, IMHO, either Big > ACC for "culture."
I grew up regarding "Easterners" as somewhat snobby, overbearing, meddling, and impractical.
The ACC does have some schools with excellent academic reputations, but that doesn't mean the conference is necessarily a better cultural fit for Cal. When it was created in 1953, it was a conference of southern schools. In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East and caused its eventual collapse. The northern schools were added then and in 2013 - 2014, but the conference retains much of its southern feel. If you visit the campuses of Clemson, FSU, UNC, or even UVA, you'll feel a different vibe compared to Cal or Stanford. There's nothing wrong with this, but people shouldn't think that the ACC is a better cultural fit to the Big-12. It's the wrong criterion to use.
Matters of academics and culture (or the welfare of 'student athletes') are window dressing that hold little, if any, weight in the discussions of those making the decision.
“Culture” is not really a big deal. Does anyone think that Washington State or Arizona State had a “culture” similar to Cal or Stanford? No.
The academic rankings are probably the real reason Stanford (in particular) does not want to be in the Big 12, and they seem to mostly be driving this bus. The ACC is academically strong enough to be palatable.
I think people constantly confound selectivity and quality. Washington State and ASU have great faculty. ASU is all business nowadays and does not hire any tenure track faculty that are not major grant pullers. Sure, the student body might be slightly different, but they have some good students too (they created things like honors colleges to try and attract some of the better students). The situation was different in the 1980s.
BINGO.
There are nuanced differences between Western "Southerners" versus Eastern "Southerners." Honestly, if we're talking plain ordinary daily life, accents, and general P.O.V., the more western, the more kindred to us. So, IMHO, either Big > ACC for "culture."
I grew up regarding "Easterners" as somewhat snobby, overbearing, meddling, and impractical.