Page 44 of 101 FirstFirst ... 3442434445465494 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 880 of 2016
  1. #861

    I completely agree...

    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    Adding Syracuse and Pitt was a good move, even if the other conferences stay at 12 temporarily (if A&M stays in B12 since Arkansas turned down B12 overture).

    It's adding UCONN and Rutgers too soon that would be a mistake, since it forgoes any opportunity of ever getting Notre Dame or Penn St.(Pitt helps here, and Cuse does not hurt case for either) They are not imminent but might be some day after Paterno and after Notre Dame realizes its days of independence are limited.

    Probably at best get one not both, but better than none.

    Eventually everybody goes to 16 anbd there are not 4 ACC could attract that are better than Cuse and Pitt.

    Also gives some insurance if ACC loses someone (higher buyout helps but not as powerful as granting rights for 6 years like B12 is discussing) to already have Pitt and Cuse rather than appear to be desparate at that point.
    We are heading to 16 teams or more superconferences; and it will be sooner rather than later IMO. By being poractive and adding Pitt and Syracuse, The ACC is ahead of the curve and in stronger position (especially if one or two schools currently in the ACC decide to leave) to adapt to the changing landscape of college athletics. The ACC is in a position of strenght in which they can now selectively choose which schools to add at this point; and potentially wait on a school like ND or PSU (although highly doubtful). If they had waited and teams left the ACC or other conferences picked up quality schools to grow, the ACC would've been reactive and may have had to added less quality schools to stay viable.

  2. #862
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Georgetown is in DC. Villanova is in Philadelphia. UConn is in Storrs. Slight difference in talent pools there.
    I once asked Jim Calhoun if he had recruited Dave McClure (from CT). Calhoun told me that he had not, that he preferred out of state players so they did not have the extra pressure on them of performing before people he knew.

    Sounds kind of silly, maybe he was just giving me an excuse. But that's what the dude said.

  3. #863
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I once asked Jim Calhoun if he had recruited Dave McClure (from CT). Calhoun told me that he had not, that he preferred out of state players so they did not have the extra pressure on them of performing before people he knew.

    Sounds kind of silly, maybe he was just giving me an excuse. But that's what the dude said.
    Connecticut isn't exactly ripe with talent...but for most of the highest performing basketball programs, region doesn't matter anyway...Kyle was from Oregon...you cna't get much further away...scheyer from Illinois, you pointed out dave was from CT, the one thing these places all have in common is that they're not north carolina. The top programs recruit the top talent, wherever it is located. villanova being in Philly or Georgetown is essentially meaningless. I could look, but I'd imagine they have very few players from their hometowns as well.

    I would like to point out that Andre Drummond is from connecticut (about 15 minutes from my hometown) and Tyler Olander who started 21 games last year is from Storrs...you can't get much more hometown than that, so recruiting from out of town would seem to be a preference rather than a hard rule.
    1200. DDMF.

  4. #864
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Connecticut isn't exactly ripe with talent...but for most of the highest performing basketball programs, region doesn't matter anyway...Kyle was from Oregon...you cna't get much further away...scheyer from Illinois, you pointed out dave was from CT, the one thing these places all have in common is that they're not north carolina. The top programs recruit the top talent, wherever it is located. villanova being in Philly or Georgetown is essentially meaningless. I could look, but I'd imagine they have very few players from their hometowns as well.

    I would like to point out that Andre Drummond is from connecticut (about 15 minutes from my hometown) and Tyler Olander who started 21 games last year is from Storrs...you can't get much more hometown than that, so recruiting from out of town would seem to be a preference rather than a hard rule.
    Few--if any--programs have more of a national footprint than Duke basketball. K has recruited two star players from Alaska, multiple Californians, two Oregonians, Texans, and players from Washington state, Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Minnesota and Colorado. Even Canadians, Germans, Poles, Brits and Lithuanians, although all prepped in North America.

    Even a few players from North Carolina.

  5. #865
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Few--if any--programs have more of a national footprint than Duke basketball. K has recruited two star players from Alaska, multiple Californians, two Oregonians, Texans, and players from Washington state, Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Minnesota and Colorado. Even Canadians, Germans, Poles, Brits and Lithuanians, although all prepped in North America.

    Even a few players from North Carolina.
    It's certainly true, and the kind of thing you can do when you put out a team worthy of being on national TV half the times it plays.
    1200. DDMF.

  6. #866
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    We are heading to 16 teams or more superconferences; and it will be sooner rather than later IMO. By being poractive and adding Pitt and Syracuse, The ACC is ahead of the curve and in stronger position (especially if one or two schools currently in the ACC decide to leave) to adapt to the changing landscape of college athletics. The ACC is in a position of strenght in which they can now selectively choose which schools to add at this point; and potentially wait on a school like ND or PSU (although highly doubtful). If they had waited and teams left the ACC or other conferences picked up quality schools to grow, the ACC would've been reactive and may have had to added less quality schools to stay viable.
    I'm quoting post, though it could have come from any poster Class of 94 because you share the sentiment of almost everyone on this board. I know I am in a very small minority, but I think that's all wrong. No one has been able to explain why expanding to 16 teams is a definite, they just throw it out there as a fact to justify the ACC's moves. In fact I'd say it seems less and less likely every day. We weren't proactive, we were reactive to the fear of the moment. Call it perspective if you like, but it's definitely not fact. Taking Syracuse and Pitt can't be seen as putting the ACC in a position of strength from a football perspective, which everyone admits this is all based on. I've argued this since the beginning and even stated that it looks bad for the ACC. If everyone went to 4 conferences of 16 then fine, but they didn't and it leaves the ACC looking like the conference that flinched. I've said it before and even posted a link a while back of others authoring those same thoughts. Here is another...http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/20...expansion.html I'll grant everyone has an agenda and I'm sure the author of this article does, but it doesn't change perception.

    I admit I'm not a fan of the mega conferences, but I can see the good and bad and want the ACC to be in a good position should it occur. I'm just not convinced it's going to occur and don't think we made the best move regardless. Had we waited, there is no way the ACC makes the same move today that it made a week ago.
    Last edited by Scorp4me; 09-24-2011 at 10:35 PM.

  7. #867
    Hate to post back to back, but earlier in this thread I mentioned that the one organization who should have been proactive in this mess is the NCAA. I got some great responses as to how they couldn't, but I found an article that tells why they can't. Based ironically on the 1984 case NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents. It's a great read and I highly suggest it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...oqK_story.html

  8. #868
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    I'm singling out the post, though certainly not the poster Class of 94 because you share the sentiment of almost everyone on this board. I know I am in a very small minority, but I think that's all wrong. No one has been able to explain why expanding to 16 teams is a definite, they just throw it out there as a fact to justify the ACC's moves. In fact I'd say it seems less and less likely every day. We weren't proactive, we were reactive to the fear of the moment. Call it perspective if you like, but it's definitely not fact. Taking Syracuse and Pitt can't be seen as putting the ACC in a position of strength from a football perspective, which everyone admits this is all based on. I've argued this since the beginning and even stated that it looks bad for the ACC. If everyone went to 4 conferences of 16 then fine, but they didn't and it leaves the ACC looking like the conference that flinched. I've said it before and even posted a link a while back of others authoring those same thoughts. Here is another...http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/20...expansion.html I'll grant everyone has an agenda and I'm sure the author of this article does, but it doesn't change perception.

    I admit I'm not a fan of the mega conferences, but I can see the good and bad and want the ACC to be in a good position should it occur. I'm just not convinced it's going to occur and don't think we made the best move regardless. Had we waited, there is no way the ACC makes the same move today that it made a week ago.
    Usually agree with you Scorp, but not sure here. There was a great WSJ article a week or so ago about the mergers, and it pointed out that there are about 68-70 "major" programs (that would include teams like Duke, Vandy, Cincy, Baylor, etc). If there are four 16-team conferences, they would have about every major team covered. In such a situation -- why have the BCS? Have the four mega-conferences just work out play-offs amongst themselves. The BCS contract expires in some five years or so.

    I do not pretend to undersand it, and I've been against expansion consistently since we went from eight to nine. But I do think that a sixteen team conference creates two eight team divisions (which works for football, the driver of the revenue and thus the whole discussion for better or worse) and four of them covers almost everyone. It makes me wonder, frankly, whether ND might decide that it is better to join a conference (like the ACC, which has an ESPN contract) than be left out. Think back to the old bowl system, where some bowls (like the Rose Bowl) were tied to conference champions and thus you did not necessarily have #1 versus #2.

    Not saying any of this is Gospel -- I do not pretend to fully understand it all -- but the above seems pretty likely to me.

  9. #869
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Connecticut isn't exactly ripe with talent...but for most of the highest performing basketball programs, region doesn't matter anyway...Kyle was from Oregon...you cna't get much further away...scheyer from Illinois, you pointed out dave was from CT, the one thing these places all have in common is that they're not north carolina. The top programs recruit the top talent, wherever it is located. villanova being in Philly or Georgetown is essentially meaningless. I could look, but I'd imagine they have very few players from their hometowns as well.
    Actually, Georgetown recruits heavily from the DC-Baltimore area. Chris Wright, Austin Freeman, Jeff Green, Jason Clark, DaJuan Summers, Henry Sims all from the area. The Hoyas go outside, too - Monroe, Hollis Thompson, etc. - but if there's a DC kid who can get into school and isn't a head case, Gtown will be in the mix with a great chance.

    That doesn't necessarily detract from your basic point.
    Quel est si drole de la paix, de l'amour, et de la comprehension?

  10. #870
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    I'm quoting post, though it could have come from any poster Class of 94 because you share the sentiment of almost everyone on this board. I know I am in a very small minority, but I think that's all wrong. No one has been able to explain why expanding to 16 teams is a definite, they just throw it out there as a fact to justify the ACC's moves. In fact I'd say it seems less and less likely every day. We weren't proactive, we were reactive to the fear of the moment. Call it perspective if you like, but it's definitely not fact. Taking Syracuse and Pitt can't be seen as putting the ACC in a position of strength from a football perspective, which everyone admits this is all based on. I've argued this since the beginning and even stated that it looks bad for the ACC. If everyone went to 4 conferences of 16 then fine, but they didn't and it leaves the ACC looking like the conference that flinched. I've said it before and even posted a link a while back of others authoring those same thoughts. Here is another...http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/20...expansion.html I'll grant everyone has an agenda and I'm sure the author of this article does, but it doesn't change perception.

    I admit I'm not a fan of the mega conferences, but I can see the good and bad and want the ACC to be in a good position should it occur. I'm just not convinced it's going to occur and don't think we made the best move regardless. Had we waited, there is no way the ACC makes the same move today that it made a week ago.
    First of all, expansion will presumably generate more TV revenue for all current and future ACC schools. Two more might not.

    Second, whether we stick at 14 or add two more, expansion has some potential for addressing some of the problems with the last expansion by filling between MD and BC, and allowing for the creation of geographic divisions that allows for more games between traditional rivals. A 16 team conference can be thought of as two 8 team leagues that share a TV contract.

  11. #871
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    Actually, Georgetown recruits heavily from the DC-Baltimore area. Chris Wright, Austin Freeman, Jeff Green, Jason Clark, DaJuan Summers, Henry Sims all from the area. The Hoyas go outside, too - Monroe, Hollis Thompson, etc. - but if there's a DC kid who can get into school and isn't a head case, Gtown will be in the mix with a great chance.

    That doesn't necessarily detract from your basic point.
    Thanks for filling me in. I was speculating on their recruiting habits and didn't due the necessary research. Georgetown appears to certainly benefit from a wealth of talent in the area, but that doesn't mean that a team without a wealth of talent in the area can't survive by recruiting elsewhere. One could also mention that Uconn recruits NY, where they picked up kemba.
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #872

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Usually agree with you Scorp, but not sure here. There was a great WSJ article a week or so ago about the mergers, and it pointed out that there are about 68-70 "major" programs (that would include teams like Duke, Vandy, Cincy, Baylor, etc). If there are four 16-team conferences, they would have about every major team covered. In such a situation -- why have the BCS? Have the four mega-conferences just work out play-offs amongst themselves. The BCS contract expires in some five years or so.

    I do not pretend to undersand it, and I've been against expansion consistently since we went from eight to nine. But I do think that a sixteen team conference creates two eight team divisions (which works for football, the driver of the revenue and thus the whole discussion for better or worse) and four of them covers almost everyone. It makes me wonder, frankly, whether ND might decide that it is better to join a conference (like the ACC, which has an ESPN contract) than be left out. Think back to the old bowl system, where some bowls (like the Rose Bowl) were tied to conference champions and thus you did not necessarily have #1 versus #2.

    Not saying any of this is Gospel -- I do not pretend to fully understand it all -- but the above seems pretty likely to me.
    I've seen several articles about the "major" programs. Some like to argue if we just started over and made four conferences who would they include. Sadly and ridiculously usually Duke is left out. Shows how much football is driving this expansion. As for not needing the BCS, what an interesting thought. I thought the BCS would do away with the NCAA, perhaps it will turn out the other way around.

    As for my issues. Like you I'm not a fan, but if it's coming then I think we should do what we can to remain strong. Perhaps it's coming, perhaps it's not. Perhaps it's just the timing that I didn't like. The most compelling argument is if you were looking at the landscape today I just don't think the ACC rushes to accept Syr/Pitt. Word leaked out on Saturday about the ACC expanding and I believe it was the following Monday, two days later, that it began looking like no one would be actually moving as Texas and OK began discussing saving the Big 12.

    And yes I've seen several point out that 16 conferences with two divisions is like a nice little 8 team conference. Just have a hard time convincing me that's better than eight 8 team conferences. For that matter I'm not sure why you are forced to have only 64 teams. Heck even the basketball tournament has expanded from that, lol. But as I've said, perhaps I will like it better

  13. #873
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    Catching up

    Been kinda busy for a couple days so I had not had a chance to peruse this thread. So, I am doing some quick catching up.

    1) Football vs. Basketball -- Someone asked earlier how football could be so much more of a revenue driver than basketball because there are so many more basketball games to air. Last Saturday, ABC aired an early season football game between FSU and Oklahoma. It was a good matchup, featuring a pair of top 10 teams. But, it was not a big rivalry game nor was it late in the year with something like a BCS or conference championship going to the winner. It drew almost 10 million viewers.

    You may recall that 2 years ago, CBS put the end-of-season Duke-Carolina game in prime time. Duke and UNC are THE big names in college basketball and the Duke-Carolina game is often far and away the biggest game of the regular season in college basketball. The game was played in March, jsut as the nation was getting ready for conference tournaments and the big NCAA tourney. This was college basketball's moment to shine! The game drew fabulous rating for a college basketball game. CBS was thrilled. 4.5 million people watched.

    So, a somewhat routine Saturday night football game on ABC vs. a hugely hyped, late season rivalry basketball matchup on CBS and the football game wins more than 2-to-1. A better comparison to the Duke-UNC game might be last year's Alabama-Auburn game. It drew 12.5 million viewers, about three times what the Duke-Carolina game did.

    How about another comparison? The UConn-Kentucky national championship game in March drew 16.7 million viewers, the most for a basketball national championship in 6 years. By comparison, the Alabama-Texas 2010 national title game drew 30.8 million viewers.

    Bottom line-- football is at least twice as popular as basketball... probably more. I wish it was not that way, I really do, but that is just the reality here.

    2) Why 14? Why now? -- some people have wondered about why the ACC "rushed" to become the biggest BCS conference. I think this was a smart proactive move by the conference. And the reason is that the ACC knows it can still be plucked of teams by the SEC or Big Ten. While we are certainly a power player in the conference pecking order, we remain vulnerable. By moving to 14 we accomplish two things. First, we give ourselves a chance to boost our revenue/TV dollars when we negotiate a new deal in a couple years and are able to include Pitt and Syrac's markets in it. Those dollars should make us less vulnerable to an SEC/BigTen raid. Second, if the SEC or BTen grabs a team or two, we want to remain a strong conference. If, for example, Maryland and/or FSU were to leave the SEC and knock us down to 10 teams, we would be seen as a conference in trouble. Now, with 2 more strong BCS-calliber schools in the fold, we have a cushion to keep the league impressive in the unfortunate and unlikely event that a couple schools bolt.

    -Jason "thanks for patience reading this " Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  14. #874
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Been kinda busy for a couple days so I had not had a chance to peruse this thread. So, I am doing some quick catching up.

    1) Football vs. Basketball -- Someone asked earlier how football could be so much more of a revenue driver than basketball because there are so many more basketball games to air. Last Saturday, ABC aired an early season football game between FSU and Oklahoma. It was a good matchup, featuring a pair of top 10 teams. But, it was not a big rivalry game nor was it late in the year with something like a BCS or conference championship going to the winner. It drew almost 10 million viewers.

    You may recall that 2 years ago, CBS put the end-of-season Duke-Carolina game in prime time. Duke and UNC are THE big names in college basketball and the Duke-Carolina game is often far and away the biggest game of the regular season in college basketball. The game was played in March, jsut as the nation was getting ready for conference tournaments and the big NCAA tourney. This was college basketball's moment to shine! The game drew fabulous rating for a college basketball game. CBS was thrilled. 4.5 million people watched.

    So, a somewhat routine Saturday night football game on ABC vs. a hugely hyped, late season rivalry basketball matchup on CBS and the football game wins more than 2-to-1. A better comparison to the Duke-UNC game might be last year's Alabama-Auburn game. It drew 12.5 million viewers, about three times what the Duke-Carolina game did.

    How about another comparison? The UConn-Kentucky national championship game in March drew 16.7 million viewers, the most for a basketball national championship in 6 years. By comparison, the Alabama-Texas 2010 national title game drew 30.8 million viewers.

    Bottom line-- football is at least twice as popular as basketball... probably more. I wish it was not that way, I really do, but that is just the reality here.

    2) Why 14? Why now? -- some people have wondered about why the ACC "rushed" to become the biggest BCS conference. I think this was a smart proactive move by the conference. And the reason is that the ACC knows it can still be plucked of teams by the SEC or Big Ten. While we are certainly a power player in the conference pecking order, we remain vulnerable. By moving to 14 we accomplish two things. First, we give ourselves a chance to boost our revenue/TV dollars when we negotiate a new deal in a couple years and are able to include Pitt and Syrac's markets in it. Those dollars should make us less vulnerable to an SEC/BigTen raid. Second, if the SEC or BTen grabs a team or two, we want to remain a strong conference. If, for example, Maryland and/or FSU were to leave the SEC and knock us down to 10 teams, we would be seen as a conference in trouble. Now, with 2 more strong BCS-calliber schools in the fold, we have a cushion to keep the league impressive in the unfortunate and unlikely event that a couple schools bolt.

    -Jason "thanks for patience reading this " Evans
    Let me be the first to point out that UConn and Kentucky didn't actually play for the national championship.

    It wasn't in March, either but that's just being picky.

  15. #875
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Been kinda busy for a couple days so I had not had a chance to peruse this thread. So, I am doing some quick catching up.

    1) Football vs. Basketball -- Someone asked earlier how football could be so much more of a revenue driver than basketball because there are so many more basketball games to air. Last Saturday, ABC aired an early season football game between FSU and Oklahoma. It was a good matchup, featuring a pair of top 10 teams. But, it was not a big rivalry game nor was it late in the year with something like a BCS or conference championship going to the winner. It drew almost 10 million viewers.

    You may recall that 2 years ago, CBS put the end-of-season Duke-Carolina game in prime time. Duke and UNC are THE big names in college basketball and the Duke-Carolina game is often far and away the biggest game of the regular season in college basketball. The game was played in March, jsut as the nation was getting ready for conference tournaments and the big NCAA tourney. This was college basketball's moment to shine! The game drew fabulous rating for a college basketball game. CBS was thrilled. 4.5 million people watched.

    So, a somewhat routine Saturday night football game on ABC vs. a hugely hyped, late season rivalry basketball matchup on CBS and the football game wins more than 2-to-1. A better comparison to the Duke-UNC game might be last year's Alabama-Auburn game. It drew 12.5 million viewers, about three times what the Duke-Carolina game did.

    How about another comparison? The UConn-Kentucky national championship game in March drew 16.7 million viewers, the most for a basketball national championship in 6 years. By comparison, the Alabama-Texas 2010 national title game drew 30.8 million viewers.

    Bottom line-- football is at least twice as popular as basketball... probably more. I wish it was not that way, I really do, but that is just the reality here.
    I'm not sure I agree with some of the numbers here. I don't know if the game you were trying to reference was the Uconn-UK semifinal, which wouldn't be an appropriate comparison, or the UConn-Butler final. The championship game with Butler averaged about 20.1 million viewers (referenced at the end of this article. However, comparing this game to Alabama-Texas, doesn't do it justice as Butler-UConn was about average for the last 5 years, while Alabama-Texas was the second most watched game of the last 20 years (trailing only USC-Texas in '06). Compare the Alabama-Texas game, to Duke-Butler, which were both in the same year, and both got good ratings compared to other years and it's much closer (Duke-Butler averaged about 24 million). Also, the entire tournament in 2010 averaged a 6.0, while in 2011, it average a 6.4 rating. Here's a list of ratings from the 2009-10 bowl season. I don't have the average, but there's no way they averaged a 6.0 or better.

    The big problem with basketball in these discussions is that the conferences directly get the vast majority of the bowl money, while the NCAA tournament money is filtered through the NCAA, who only distributes about 60% of it to schools, and that 60% is split between all division I conferences, plus some going to DII and DIII. The football regular season does get much better ratings than basketball, but the sheer quantity of basketball games helps mitigate it, so it's not nearly as bad as 2-1. The lack of control over post season dollars is what really kills it in the discussion. Also, Basketball is pretty much maxing out what it can get, while the Football postseason could explode with a playoff.

    I feel like if there was ever serious talk of completely separating from the NCAA, basketball could play a subordinate, yet significant roll. Right now, however, the tv money just isn't there from the point of view of the conferences.

  16. #876
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    It's official. A&M will join the SEC in July 2012.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...t-accepted-sec

  17. #877
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post
    It's official. A&M will join the SEC in July 2012.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...t-accepted-sec
    How long do we reckon until the next domino falls? and what is it? since the PacXX has denied the big12 coalition, does the big 12 tr to scrap some teams to remain solvent? where does the SEC snatch its next team from? how long does the ACC hold out for ND, and conversely, how long does ND hold out before deciding that the need a conference?
    1200. DDMF.

  18. #878
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    How long do we reckon until the next domino falls? and what is it? since the PacXX has denied the big12 coalition, does the big 12 tr to scrap some teams to remain solvent? where does the SEC snatch its next team from? how long does the ACC hold out for ND, and conversely, how long does ND hold out before deciding that the need a conference?
    I think the next domino will be the SEC adding that 14 team. But from where? Latest rumors are either Missouri or West Virginia. FSU is still likely in the conversation. As for the ACC, I do hope they continue to hold a spot for Notre Dame. Grab your popcorn, it is going to be interesting...

  19. #879
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post
    I think the next domino will be the SEC adding that 14 team. But from where? Latest rumors are either Missouri or West Virginia. FSU is still likely in the conversation. As for the ACC, I do hope they continue to hold a spot for Notre Dame. Grab your popcorn, it is going to be interesting...
    Do you think after all the hoopla that required poaching the Big12, they would be more enticed to grab UWV after the relative cleanliness which the ACC grabbed the Big East schools?
    1200. DDMF.

  20. #880
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    A great column about how Texas' arrogance and nastiness has come home to roost. Their two biggest rivals just don't want to be anywhere near them anymore.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...nt-bolting-sec

    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

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
  •