Page 11 of 101 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 2016
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    The PAC conference is at least smart about admitting geographical partners. If OU, OSU, TX, and TxTech join the PAC 16 East, then they'll presumably have 3 conference games with the relatively local teams plus perhaps 4 or 5 more against western schools, including a presumably annual one with COlorado--which probably thought it wouldn't have to get crushed anymore by OU and Texas. That would be 2 or 3 trips to the coast, tops, every year for football. And, yes, there are plenty of rich boosters who would LOVE an annual trip to San Francisco or Seattle after having survived another brutal Texas summer--and many/most would much rather travel to LA or Portland than Tuscaloosa or Biloxi or wherever A&M fans would have to travel. And flying Dallas to LA is pretty cheap these days. But traveling visitors is hardly a major emphasis, is it?
    There is no PAC-12 school in Portland, and there is no SEC school in Biloxi. USM has a gulf coast campus, but I think that's in Long Beach.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    The PAC conference is at least smart about admitting geographical partners. If OU, OSU, TX, and TxTech join the PAC 16 East, then they'll presumably have 3 conference games with the relatively local teams plus perhaps 4 or 5 more against western schools, including a presumably annual one with COlorado--which probably thought it wouldn't have to get crushed anymore by OU and Texas. That would be 2 or 3 trips to the coast, tops, every year for football. And, yes, there are plenty of rich boosters who would LOVE an annual trip to San Francisco or Seattle after having survived another brutal Texas summer--and many/most would much rather travel to LA or Portland than Tuscaloosa or Biloxi or wherever A&M fans would have to travel. And flying Dallas to LA is pretty cheap these days. But traveling visitors is hardly a major emphasis, is it?
    If you have a sixteen team revenue sharing agreement, then for most purposes each eight team division will become the conference. For example, if UT, TT, OK, and OKSt move to the PAC 16, most of the conference games in most sports will group those four schools with AZ, AzSt, Utah and Colorado, and the PAC-8 would return to it's old self.

  3. #203

    Am I crazy to think that....

    The Big East going after Kansas and Kansas St would be an excellent move for that conference. I know Kansas and K-State aren't necessarily great football programs; but they are football programs nonethelessp; and it would push the conference closer to having 12 football playing schools. But inaddition and more importantly, they would add to very strong basketball programs to the conference, which would cement the Big East IMO as the best college basketball conference in the country. And with Kansas and K-State in the fold, it might allow the Big East to negotiate more lucrative tv contracts because of it. I know that apparently football is the driving force behind increased TV revenues; but I have to think that a conference with so many basketball heavyweights would still be attractive to ESPN and CBS. What do you guys think?

  4. #204

    Why is the Big 10 so attractive now as a conference, more so than the ACC?

    I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    It would be nice to see the ACC move

    I'd like to see the ACC stand strong and not run around like chicken little thinking the sky is falling. For that matter I'd like the other conferences that don't want to expand to do the same. It's ridiculous that a few schools are forcing things on the rest of the college landscape that no one wants. Sure everyone want to come out smelling pretty, but most would rather things stay the same.

    So let's skip ahead a step. Let's assume that we go to the super conferences of 16 teams. How long do you think it'll take for a group to break away and work out a deal worth more money. Doesn't seem like it'd be hard to me, just trim the fat. The fact is 16 teams in a conference is simply too many. I hope the ACC is able to not only see that but take advantage of it. If not...anyone for another meeting of 8 teams at a country club? =)

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
    I'm sure there are others here who could offer more details but it is my understanding that much of the Mid Atlantic region (where I would assume the ACC would be trying to get their proposed network aired) cares much more about pro sports than they do about college. DC, New York, Philadelphia, these places all care way more about the pro teams in their areas than any college team.

    I grew up just outside of DC but went to school in Tennessee and the difference in the importance of college sports in the two areas is enormous. Even if there was an ACC network I don't know that enough people would watch it. In SEC country games are on CBS/ESPN and then replayed throughout the week on Fox Sports South. I'm guessing that the level of interest in the Midwest is huge as well, thus the success of the Big Ten Network.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network?
    The Big10 is attractive because of the massive revenue that the Big10 network brings in for its schools. Why can the Big10 have a network that makes gobs of money when the ACC can't? because ACC football stinks. One can argue about teams that are good from the conference each year, and how we have competitive teams at the top, but the Big10 and the SEC are in another universe in terms of football superiority. Look top to bottom at the teams in the league. The SEC has had what, the last 4 national champions? The big 10 has 5 teams in the top 25, and this is a down year. The SEC has 6. The ACC has 2. People watch the other conferences because there are big matchups every week, matchups with national title implications. You don't have these matchups in the ACC...yeah it will be pretty big when FSU plays VT (do they even play this year???) but its still a long shot from when every week a national title contender is playing someone who has a legitimate chance to take them down.

    That's why ACC can't have a TV network as successful as the others'. That's why the ACC is currently unattractive. (the same thing holds true for the big east...they sent uconn to their bowl last year...UCONN for goodness sake)
    1200. DDMF.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
    Some thoughts:

    - Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

    - Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

    - Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

    - Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

    - I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    The Big10 is attractive because of the massive revenue that the Big10 network brings in for its schools. Why can the Big10 have a network that makes gobs of money when the ACC can't? because ACC football stinks.
    This is wrong. League quality is much less important than number of alumni and the amount of competition for attention and viewers in each state, and the Big Ten has a major advantage in both areas.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Some thoughts:

    - Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

    - Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

    - Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

    - Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

    - I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).
    I thought Purdue was a public school.

    The ACC has some large, land-grant public universities. But most share their with other, comparable public universities. The flagships universities of Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin practically have their states to themselves, while Ohio State strides the Buckeye state like a Colossus, Cincy notwithstanding.

    Maryland is the only ACC school that dominates a state like that; maybe BC, if they could get more Bostonians to switch off the Red Sox, Pats, Celtics and Bruins. Good luck with that.

    But the demographics are changing. Georgia is the 9th most populous state, NC the 10th and I think Virginia is 12th. And we all know about Florida.

    After every census, states in the Big-Midwest-number-to-be-determined conference hemorrhage congressional seats to ACC states like Florida, Georgia, NC and Virginia. Raleigh currently has a bigger population than Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis or Pittsburgh and Charlotte is even bigger. The ACC as presently constituted has Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Charlotte, the Triangle, the Virginia Tidewater, Baltimore and D.C. It's not your grandfather's rural South.

    So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Some thoughts:

    - Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

    - Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

    - Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

    - Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

    - I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).
    You and Uh-No have made excellent points; and being a NC transplant livinging in the Detroit metro area now, I do believe college football is bigger and more important out here than college basketball; and a majority of schools in the Big 10 have huge stadiums that regularly sell out. But I don't think that the Big 10 is all that superior in football. If you've look over the last few years, the Big 10 has been dominateed by the PAC-12 and the SEC; and I believe in comparison over the same period of time, the ACC has had a better record than the Big 10 over those conferences. Just look at last year for example where Mich St and Mich were blown out by SEC teams in bowl games. Penn St has been good but hasn't been relevant in the BCS National Championship for years; Mich has been bad for the last few years under Rich Rod; and teams like Iowa, Mich St and Northwestern have consistently been solid but not spectacular programs. And teams like Indiana, Minnesota and Ill have been bad. The discussion around here is that the Big 10 has consistently come up short against the SEC and PAC 12 and needs to figure out how to better compete against those conferences, especially in bowl games like the Rose Bowl. Saying that, there is a definite since of superiority by folks around here in regards to Big 10 football vs ACC football; but my sensoe is that if you really breakdown the Big 10 vs ACC, the two leagues in football are very similar and I really don't see that much separation between the two [if any]. The jewel for the Big 10 these last few years has consistently been OSU and up until this year OSU has been head and shoulders above the rest of the schools in the Big 10. The same could be said for VT in the ACC although OSU has clearly been more competitive nationally than VT.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX

    Uh Oh

    ISU, KSU and KU may be aligning with Baylor. Things might get ugly.

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    This is wrong. League quality is much less important than number of alumni and the amount of competition for attention and viewers in each state, and the Big Ten has a major advantage in both areas.
    You don't think if the ACC was fielding multiple title contendors every year they wouldn't have a larger tv presence?

    the ACC is clearly not among the top 4 football conferences, and so no one really wants to watch them. since there is no good product, people watch other things. There is plenty of NFL football in the midwest...vikings, bears, browns, bengals, steelers, bills...so the "pro sports" argument really doesn't hold much water

    You are certainly right that the schools in the big 10 are huge. NCSU, UNC, MD, VT and FSU are huge as well. Michigan seems to support two football programs, as do Illinois and Indiana. I don't understand why you think this is an issue in the ACC, but apparently not an issue in the Big10. If the five aforementioned schools could field great teams, darn skippy people would want to watch them, but the fact is they don't...and nobody wants to watch NCSU v MD in a battle for the bottom of the league
    1200. DDMF.

  14. #214

    To form 5 Super conferences, disband B12 and CUSA. Absorb TX teams in BE

    I took a run at forming five 16-team football conferences, under the assumption that B12 disintegrates.

    In the end, Big 16 (formerly B10) is reasonably strong is both Football and Basketball.

    SEC and P16 are primarily Football powerhouses with a few decent Basketball teams.

    ACC and Big East/TX teams are primarily basketball with a few decent Football teams.

    SEC is king in Football. I assumed that in exchange for owning all of Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (plus Ark and A&M), they were willing to give up KY-TN-SC to ACC to strengthen their Bball.

    P10 gets to P16 by adding Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Boise State and Tulsa (alternates BYU, UNLV, San Diego St).

    B10 gets to B16 by absorbing KU, K-St, MO and reluctantly agrees to Iowa St., assuming B10 cannot persuade Notre Dame.

    To get BE to 16 teams in football required that the Big East leverage what it already started with TCU and absorb a total of 7 B12/Conf USA teams to capture all of the Texas market except A&M who prefers SEC.

    The rest of C-USA is spread across Tulsa to P16, Memphis, ECU and Marshall to ACC, So. Miss., UCF and UAB to SEC, etc.

    Big East gives up USF to SEC, swaps Louisville and West Virginia to ACC for BC and Maryland, and also adds Temple. Since BE already has 7 non-football schools, counting Notre Dame, Temple could stay in MAC for football but become Big East/TX's 24th basketball team..

    The display below is two 12 team divisions but could be three 8's or four 6's.

    ACC ends up with 6 perennial top 10 basketball teams, gives up FSU, Miami, BC, Maryland, and GA Tech, keeps VA Tech for geography reasons, but gains UK, Louisville, Memphis, TN, So Carolina, West Virginia, Marshall & ECU to get to 16.

    ACC would have to admit that to get to 16, cannot claim academic superiority that has suffered with recent additions already.

    There was no fit for Tulane from CUSA who would need to join another mid-major conference for football and basketball. A10 would need to replace Temple in Basketball.

    The displays below are from a basketball perspective, but since they are as geographic as possible, may work for football too (except Cincy has to change divisions to lump the 8 Texas football teams in one division, and the 8 non-TX in the BE division).

    These are basketball rankings. Order would be vastly different for football and not include 8 of the BE schools who are not BE football (six have no team, plus Notre Dame remains independent and Temple stays in MAC for football). Think Oklahoma #1 in Football but cellar dweller in basketball lately.

    SEC-FL-GA

    Florida
    FLORIDA ST
    MIAMI-FL
    Georgia
    CENTRAL FLORIDA
    GEORGIA TECH
    SO FLORIDA
    Auburn

    SEC - AL-MS-LA
    Alabama
    TEXAS A & M
    U A B
    Arkansas
    SO. MISSISSIPPI
    Mississippi
    Mississippi State
    Louisiana State

    (SO. CAROLINA)
    (KENTUCKY)
    (VANDERBILT)
    (TENNESSEE)


    P10 CA-OR-WA

    UCLA
    Washington
    California
    USC
    Washington State
    Oregon
    Stanford
    Oregon State

    P10 AZ-OK-UT-CO
    Arizona
    Colorado
    OKLAHOMA ST
    Arizona State
    TULSA
    BOISE STATE
    Utah
    OKLAHOMA

    alt – BYI
    alt – UNLV
    alt - San Diego St

    B10-Ill.Oh-Mich
    Ohio State
    Michigan
    Purdue
    Michigan State
    Illini
    Northwestern
    Penn State
    Indiana

    B10 – KS-MO-Iowa
    KANSAS
    Wisconsin
    MISSOURI
    KANSAS ST
    Minnesota
    Nebraska
    IOWA ST
    Iowa

    Big East-NY-NJ-CT-MA
    Syracuse
    Connecticut
    Pittsburgh
    TEMPLE
    St. John's
    Villanova
    Georgetown
    MARYLAND
    BOSTON COLLEGE
    Rutgers
    Seton Hall
    Providence

    BE - TX - Upper Midwest
    TEXAS
    Cincinnati (for basketball, move to other div for football)
    Marquette
    BAYLOR
    Notre Dame
    TEXAS - EL PASO
    TEXAS TECH
    TEXAS CHRISTIAN
    HOUSTON
    RICE
    SOUTHERN METHODIST
    DePaul

    (WEST VIRGINIA)
    (LOUISVILLE)
    (SOUTH FLORIDA)

    ACC-NC-SC
    North Carolina
    Duke
    Clemson
    Virginia
    No. Carolina St
    SO. CAROLINA
    EAST CAROLINA
    Wake Forest

    ACC - KY-TN-VA
    KENTUCKY
    LOUISVILLE
    VANDERBILT
    MEMPHIS
    WEST VIRGINIA
    Virginia Tech
    TENNESSEE
    MARSHALL

    (FLORIDA STATE)
    (MIAMI-FL)
    (GEORGIA TECH)
    (BOSTON COLLEGE)
    (MARYLAND)

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    I thought Purdue was a public school.
    D'oh! Right you are. Either way, it's a huge school, with a ton of alum in Chicago.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    The ACC has some large, land-grant public universities. But most share their with other, comparable public universities. The flagships universities of Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin practically have their states to themselves, while Ohio State strides the Buckeye state like a Colossus, Cincy notwithstanding.
    This is the key, I think. Even those Big Ten schools that share a state - Michigan/MSU, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/NW, Penn St./whoever, don't seem to suffer for it, with the exception of Northwestern, but that's more a function of its private status.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    But the demographics are changing. Georgia is the 9th most populous state, NC the 10th and I think Virginia is 12th. And we all know about Florida.

    After every census, states in the Big-Midwest-number-to-be-determined conference hemorrhage congressional seats to ACC states like Florida, Georgia, NC and Virginia...The ACC as presently constituted has Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Charlotte, the Triangle, the Virginia Tidewater, Baltimore and D.C. It's not your grandfather's rural South.

    So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?
    It's true the South's growing faster than the Midwest generally. That said, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are still 5-8 in population. And no matter how big NC gets, there's not enough people to support Duke and Wake as well as UNC and State. Georgia's growth helps UGA more than Tech, and I just don't get the feeling anyone really competes with the Gators in most of Florida, though that may be wrong. The South may grow, but as a region it still supports two major conferences to the upper Midwest's one.

    (Pulled out of context):

    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Raleigh currently has a bigger population than Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis or Pittsburgh and Charlotte is even bigger.
    Sorry, that's not right. Not just a little bit not right, but not right for either town compared to any of the ones you've compared them to. Or Columbus, for that matter. The Twin Cities (let's not forget poor St. Paul) metro has twice the population Charlotte does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

  16. #216
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    I'd like to see the ACC stand strong and not run around like chicken little thinking the sky is falling. For that matter I'd like the other conferences that don't want to expand to do the same. It's ridiculous that a few schools are forcing things on the rest of the college landscape that no one wants. Sure everyone want to come out smelling pretty, but most would rather things stay the same.

    So let's skip ahead a step. Let's assume that we go to the super conferences of 16 teams. How long do you think it'll take for a group to break away and work out a deal worth more money. Doesn't seem like it'd be hard to me, just trim the fat. The fact is 16 teams in a conference is simply too many. I hope the ACC is able to not only see that but take advantage of it. If not...anyone for another meeting of 8 teams at a country club? =)
    If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

    Eat or be eaten...

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

    Eat or be eaten...
    See people say this, but never explain how it's supposed to work. How will adding teams that don't substantially increase the league's revenues prevent the SEC or the Big Ten from taking the schools they want anyway?

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    D'oh!



    It's true the South's growing faster than the Midwest generally. That said, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are still 5-8 in population. And no matter how big NC gets, there's not enough people to support Duke and Wake as well as UNC and State. Georgia's growth helps UGA more than Tech, and I just don't get the feeling anyone really competes with the Gators in most of Florida, though that may be wrong. The South may grow, but as a region it still supports two major conferences to the upper Midwest's one.

    (Pulled out of context):



    Sorry, that's not right. Not just a little bit not right, but not right for either town compared to any of the ones you've compared them to. Or Columbus, for that matter. The Twin Cities (let's not forget poor St. Paul) metro has twice the population Charlotte does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas
    According to the nice folks at the United States Census bureau, Raleigh was the 43rd largest city in the United States at the 2010 census.

    That makes Raleigh larger than

    #45 Cleveland
    #48 Minneapolis
    #58 St. Louis
    #59 Pittsburgh
    #62 Cincinnati
    #70 Buffalo

    I didn't mention metropolitan areas. Or urban areas. Or cities beside other nearby cities. I said Raleigh had more people than Cincinnati. It does. What part of my sentence was factually incorrect?

    I also stand by my larger point. I'm talking about the future, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. People have been moving South for decades and I am unaware of any projections that this massive population shift is going to stop anytime soon. Look at the population declines of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and numerous other rust-belt cities.

    Cleveland lost 82,000 people from 2000 to 2010. Raleigh gained well over 100,000. See some trend lines? What will the populations look like in 2020? 2030? Doesn't it make some sense to invest in states that are gaining population in a big way over states that aren't?

    The ACC has teams in the 4th, 9th, 10th and 12th most populous states, the Big 10/12/ in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. But the four most populous ACC states gained around seven million people between 2000 and 2010. The four most populous Big 10/12 gained a little over one million.

    Those figures suggest some confidence in the ACC's ability to survive the current maelstrom. IMO.

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?
    But we aren't talking about states, we're talking about fanbases. The Big Ten fanbases are huge, and will stay that way even as the populations of those states shrink. It will take a very long time for the ACC to catch up through population growth.

  20. #220
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    I'll call my shot now -- even if they go undefeated and beat Alabama by 40 in the Sugar Bowl in January, Boise St. will NEVER be in a major conference.

    If we go to 4 16 team leagues, the schools that have to worry are Baylor, Iowa St., TCU, South Florida, Cincinnati, and K-State. Everyone else will be just fine at the end of this still speculative game of musical chairs. Only one school might burst through, and that's BYU.

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Realignment
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Big East Realignment
    By johnb in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM
  3. The Kyrie Irving Toe Vigil
    By diveonthefloor in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1507
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 06:25 PM
  4. NCAA Conference Realignment
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  5. Sentinel: 5 Years After Realignment: Are Schools Better Off?
    By gotham devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 11:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •