There are a lot of ways to measure the strength of a Division I conference. You can go by its TV revenue, the thing that dictates actual power. You can check its rankings in the Directors’ Cup. You can—and we are about to do this—measure how many national championships it currently holds.
When the ACC added Stanford, the conference’s cumulative trophy case took a big step forward. Stanford is, in any given year these days, either the best or the second-best athletic department in the country, a title it currently contests with Texas. It’s a national championship factory, and it has been for years. Within the college sports industry—not just the college football industry—Stanford is a juggernaut. Few can compete with Stanford. These days, it’s really only Texas.
How many NCAA titles did Stanford win this year? Only two. Stanford won in men’s gymnastics, and Stanford won in women’s golf. I say “only” two because last year, Stanford won three, and in 2021–22, Stanford won three, and in 2020–21, Stanford won two but that was a weird year for college sports because of Covid. The point is: Stanford will only carry two banners for the ACC when we begin the 2024–25 collective collegiate athletic campaign. Only two! How dare they.
Even without additional cloth, the ACC is going to be in a strong position. Here are this year’s national championships by 2024–25 conference, using each athletic department’s primary conference rather than breaking it down by sport:
| Conference | Titles |
| SEC | 10* |
| ACC | 10* |
| Big 12 | 6 |
| Big Ten | 6 |
| Big East | 1 |
| Summit League | 1** |
| Conference USA | 1 |
| Ivy League | 1 |
Why the asterisk? Well, the College World Series is still going on. (The Summit League’s asterisks are because the NCAA counts South Dakota State’s FCS football title, but we didn’t include it in this list, FCS supporters though we may be.)
Yes, the College World Series has an additional stake this year. A strange, convoluted stretch of a stake. If an ACC team wins it—and there are only ACC and SEC teams in this year’s Omaha field, in case you haven’t followed closely—the ACC will carry eleven championships into next academic year, most in the country. If an SEC team wins it—and the SEC occupies the stronger position, with four teams remaining to the ACC’s two, including both teams entering the semifinals undefeated—the SEC will hold that crown.
Does the crown matter? Not that much in and of itself. But as we say often when discussing Texas in particular, a strong athletic department in lower-profile sports is an encouraging indicator for the sports fans care about. If schools can win in women’s cross country and men’s soccer, they might be able to learn something from that success which helps them in realms like football and basketball. It’s one version of the theory that “success breeds success.” Also? Fans are caring about more and more sports. That’s something illustrated by this College World Series itself.
In short:
This new ACC is good at sports, with Stanford a useful counterweight to Texas’s addition to the SEC. There is a chance that this will translate into greater success in football and basketball than we’ve recently seen. It’s far from assured. But it’s a reason for the ACC to hope.
There’s one last question here. Should the ACC boast about its championships in little-played sports, like field hockey and men’s lacrosse? Not necessarily. But if you lined the sports up by prestige, the SEC wouldn’t make the list at 1 (football—Michigan) or 2 (men’s basketball—UConn). Yes, the SEC is the most powerful conference in the country, best at the things that the most people care about. It’s not like the SEC is the reigning champ in football while the ACC finds its titles in fencing and beach volleyball.
Anyway, if an ACC team wins this College World Series? Schedule a parade in Greensboro. That conference needs every victory it can get.
Miscellany
- Why can’t we figure out checked swing calls? I didn’t think Friday night’s was the most egregious call in the history of sports, but it should be such a straightforward thing, so easy to review almost instantaneously. Instead, we have an ump with a very poor angle (45º isn’t great, guys!) making crucial decisions. It’s hard to think of another call in sports where the officials are more set up to fail.
- I’m sure some gamblers have loads of research on the trends present in each game in a series. For example: When teams are down 3–0, how often do they win by one million points, runs, or goals? Is that frequency increasing over time? I think I’d be making more of the Oilers’ showing on Saturday if the Mavericks hadn’t done the same thing on Friday. Maybe I’m wrong, though.
- The Dodgers lost Mookie Betts and Yoshinobu Yamamoto over the weekend, possibly for extended periods of time. Meanwhile, the Braves’ bats woke up and both Trea Turner and Gerrit Cole are being activated this week. I don’t know that the Dodgers’ lead on the sport was as big entering the weekend as futures markets have it, but ’twas a damaging weekend for their World Series campaign.
- St. John’s is moving on from athletic director Mike Cragg, a longtime Coach K staffer at Duke before making the move to Queens in 2018. I admittedly know very little about St. John’s. I know the basketball history. I remember it having a strong baseball program within the context of the Big East. I think it’s effectively a former Catholic school, kind of like Georgetown: still technically Catholic but not really Catholic in practice (as evidenced by the hiring of Rick Pitino, something which wouldn’t fly with most American Catholic booster bases). Anyway, there’s a theory out there that Rick Pitino—whom Cragg hired, at least in the official sense—was unhappy with not being given more resources. I don’t know if that’s true or false, but it’s something to watch. The guy who once talked about Camelot seems to be a fan of having his own kingdom.
- Bryson DeChambeau’s bunker shot for, eventually, the U.S. Open win was very, very cool. I don’t know that it’ll etch itself into American history the way it would have during Tiger Woods’s prime, but that was a potent moment.
- Last, something odd which came to mind today: How did waivers work before the internet in pro sports? How many phone calls were professional teams making? Did they all just make fewer moves? I know they did, but was the speed of communication part of the reasoning behind that?
