Originally Posted by
uh_no
While it may have been appealing 6 years ago, I'm not sure the ACC is as good an option as it was 6 years ago. I can't imagine uconn or syracuse leaving the big east for the ACC at this time (or anyone else OTHER than the big 10). Both were original BE members and in fact SUED the schools that left the BE last time. While it would be awesome to add two of the best basketball teams in the country (as suddenly the conference would have 4 teams that don't wallow in mediocrity instead of two), I'm not sure it makes sense for uconn and syracuse, who suddenly go from playing almost every conference game against a big opponent to probably half as many. That might be a slight stretch, but I just don't see what is to be gained from the basketball perspective. From a football perspective, what does the ACC gain from adding two mediocre football teams? its the first expansion all over again (and uconn and syracuse are much more mediocre than tech and miami...even now). Yes uconn made the BCS last year, but they also backed into the spot and still were'nt exactly good.
SOmeone earlier mentioned money, and I'd like to see the numbers for both the ACC and the Big East, because likely the big east basketball money has skyrocketed in recent years (not to mention the big est has gotten such a huge slice of the ncaa tournament pie)...but I think a lot of the ACC football money is driven by teams like FSU and Clemson, and if they were gone, and we added Cuse and Uconn instead, I highly doubt ESPN or whomever would be willing to dish out as many gobs of money as they currently do.
TLDNR: I think while the ACC would certainly gain in basketball from these two additions, it doesn't really make sense for football, and there doesn't seem to be much gain for Uconn and Syracuse, or at least not enough to justify their bailing on the big east.