A New ACC?

[Verga3]

Plenty of speculation is brewing, so what are some thoughts regarding what the ACC will look like in 2-3 years...and beyond?

An initial assumption would be that Miami and Florida State (or even Va Tech leave for the SEC). The ACC can find 2-3 schools that are a good overall cultural/values/athletics fit. The Miami TV market is big, Tallahassee and Blacksburg less so. Striking the right balance is key.

How about these schools for a short list....some good possible combinations here:

Penn State (national following, maybe Coach K can talk to his new friend, Joe Paterno offline)
Syracuse (NY market)
South Carolina (never should have left...Clemson rivalry)
Vanderbilt (good academics/athletics fit, Nashville market)

If the ACC eventually ends up in a 16-team "super conference" then these teams might be additional candidates:

UConn
Rutgers
East Carolina

[Acymetric]

Plenty of speculation is brewing, so what are some thoughts regarding what the ACC will look like in 2-3 years...and beyond?

An initial assumption would be that Miami and Florida State (or even Va Tech leave for the SEC). The ACC can find 2-3 schools that are a good overall cultural/values/athletics fit. The Miami TV market is big, Tallahassee and Blacksburg less so. Striking the right balance is key.

How about these schools for a short list....some good possible combinations here:

Penn State (national following, maybe Coach K can talk to his new friend, Joe Paterno offline)
Syracuse (NY market)
South Carolina (never should have left...Clemson rivalry)
Vanderbilt (good academics/athletics fit, Nashville market)

If the ACC eventually ends up in a 16-team "super conference" then these teams might be additional candidates:

UConn
Rutgers
East Carolina

People talk about ECU as a potential addition, but while I think it makes sense from a geography standpoint I give it no chance of happening. Why? Non-NC schools already complain that the ACC is too NC-centric. Why would they approve the addition of another Carolina school.

[uh_no]

Plenty of speculation is brewing, so what are some thoughts regarding what the ACC will look like in 2-3 years...and beyond?

An initial assumption would be that Miami and Florida State (or even Va Tech leave for the SEC). The ACC can find 2-3 schools that are a good overall cultural/values/athletics fit. The Miami TV market is big, Tallahassee and Blacksburg less so. Striking the right balance is key.

How about these schools for a short list....some good possible combinations here:

Penn State (national following, maybe Coach K can talk to his new friend, Joe Paterno offline)
Syracuse (NY market)
South Carolina (never should have left...Clemson rivalry)
Vanderbilt (good academics/athletics fit, Nashville market)

If the ACC eventually ends up in a 16-team "super conference" then these teams might be additional candidates:

UConn
Rutgers
East Carolina

The chances a Big10 or SEC team leaves for the ACC are approximately ZERO. There are new rumors flying around that Duke and UNC might end up int he Big10 anyway, which would make the ACC not so interesting for Big East schools either.

[MCFinARL]

The chances a Big10 or SEC team leaves for the ACC are approximately ZERO. There are new rumors flying around that Duke and UNC might end up int he Big10 anyway, which would make the ACC not so interesting for Big East schools either.

Wow, I hope not. That just seems wrong. On the other hand, I still haven't gotten over Penn State joining the Big 10, so maybe I just have issues about change.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not as confident as many others that we're headed for 16-team superconferences in the near future, but if it happens, keep in mind the current financial pecking order of the leagues:

1. Big Ten (the Big Ten network is a money-making machine)
2. SEC (the best network deals -- by far)
3. Pac 10 (a surprisingly good new deal with ESPN)
4. ACC (a decent new deal with ESPN)
5. Big 12 (struggling because of the Texas situation)
6. Big East (on the verge of rupturing over the football/basketball split)

Any movement of schools is going to be UP that chain, not down. No way Penn State or South Carolina give up money to join the ACC. On the other hand the ACC could have just about any Big East school it wants.

There are two wild cards in the picture -- Notre Dame and Texas. They have the financial chops to go it alone. Texas' new deal for the Longhorn network is what has destablized the Big 12. They have all the money in the world and could go anywhere they want.

That doesn't mean that any school would necessarily jump at a move up. Some administrators and educators are leary of the SEC's lousy academic reputation. On the other hand, the Big Ten is regarded as one of the strongest academic leagues. I can guarantee you that if the SEC offered Duke/UNC a package deal, it would be rejected ... on the other hand, if the Big Ten made the same offer, goodbye ACC. (Personally, I don't think either is going to happen).

When you start speculating about what schools the ACC should add, please forget about markets. Rutgers doesn't give you the New York market -- nobody in New York turns on their TV for Rutgers. Same for Syracuse, which is in upstate New York and farther from NYC than Charlotte is from the Triangle. You want the schools that can add prestige to the league and make it an overall more attractive TV package. Heck, I'd open my eyes beyond the Big East -- Kansas almost got screwed a year ago when the Big 12 was on the verge of collapse ... what about adding the Jayhawks to the ACC (is it all that much farther from Durham to Lawrence as from Durham to Miami?)?

Finally, one thing to thing about. The SEC's wealth comes from its great TV football deal, mostly with ESPN/ABC. The idea is that if they strengthen the league's TV appeal, then the the networks would up their financial package. Otherwise, they'd be splitting their income 16 ways instead of 12 ways. But remember, ESPN/ABC just signed a new deal with the ACC and if ACC teams left for the SEC, they'd be hurting one property to strengthen another. For the networks, an ACC/SEC switch is a zero-sum game.

Just something to think about.

[Verga3]

I'm not as confident as many others that we're headed for 16-team superconferences in the near future, but if it happens, keep in mind the current financial pecking order of the leagues:

1. Big Ten (the Big Ten network is a money-making machine)
2. SEC (the best network deals -- by far)
3. Pac 10 (a surprisingly good new deal with ESPN)
4. ACC (a decent new deal with ESPN)
5. Big 12 (struggling because of the Texas situation)
6. Big East (on the verge of rupturing over the football/basketball split)

Any movement of schools is going to be UP that chain, not down. No way Penn State or South Carolina give up money to join the ACC. On the other hand the ACC could have just about any Big East school it wants.

There are two wild cards in the picture -- Notre Dame and Texas. They have the financial chops to go it alone. Texas' new deal for the Longhorn network is what has destablized the Big 12. They have all the money in the world and could go anywhere they want.

That doesn't mean that any school would necessarily jump at a move up. Some administrators and educators are leary of the SEC's lousy academic reputation. On the other hand, the Big Ten is regarded as one of the strongest academic leagues. I can guarantee you that if the SEC offered Duke/UNC a package deal, it would be rejected ... on the other hand, if the Big Ten made the same offer, goodbye ACC. (Personally, I don't think either is going to happen).

When you start speculating about what schools the ACC should add, please forget about markets. Rutgers doesn't give you the New York market -- nobody in New York turns on their TV for Rutgers. Same for Syracuse, which is in upstate New York and farther from NYC than Charlotte is from the Triangle. You want the schools that can add prestige to the league and make it an overall more attractive TV package. Heck, I'd open my eyes beyond the Big East -- Kansas almost got screwed a year ago when the Big 12 was on the verge of collapse ... what about adding the Jayhawks to the ACC (is it all that much farther from Durham to Lawrence as from Durham to Miami?)?

Finally, one thing to thing about. The SEC's wealth comes from its great TV football deal, mostly with ESPN/ABC. The idea is that if they strengthen the league's TV appeal, then the the networks would up their financial package. Otherwise, they'd be splitting their income 16 ways instead of 12 ways. But remember, ESPN/ABC just signed a new deal with the ACC and if ACC teams left for the SEC, they'd be hurting one property to strengthen another. For the networks, an ACC/SEC switch is a zero-sum game.

Just something to think about.

Great post and points on the "pecking order." Penn State and South Carolina are admittedly financial pipe dreams, but would otherwise be good fits. The question may ultimately be which Big East schools make the most overall sense.

Interesting point on Kansas...I'll then add Louisville to my list (at least it's closer to the Atlantic Coast than other coasts.)

[uh_no]

Big East (on the verge of rupturing over the football/basketball split)


Hm. I missed that one.....far as I've heard from BE schools, they're not unhappy with the arrangement....but hey, everyone says it, so it must be true...right?

[wilko]

I dunno.

To start:
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of the ACC being a BASKETBALL conference. If we Do grow we add UK, Uconn, G'town, "nova or other traditional BBall schools and return to the round-robin. Who needs an out of conference schedle with a murder's row of opponents like that? Any meaningful BBall that gets played goes thru the ACC. I'm MORE than OK on with that general notion.

However, Football seems to be the gold standard for these types of decisions.
With the NCAA promising/threatening major revamps; I think its prudent to stand pat and see how it plays out. Such changes could level the playing field or not.... depending on the reforms implemented.

With money being the central issue, the ONLY way I see to resolve and flatten corruption as it is currently, is for the NCAA to insert themselves into the process. Much as they do the clearinghouse thing for eligibility; they need to be the conduit for paying player stipends, controlling benefits allowed and managing violations with cash penalties. Anyone consider the money made from the current system is why we DONT have a playoff in college football. They are less interested in a national champion than making money. Deflate the $ out of the system.

This Shapiro guy.. instead of suckling up directly to Miami Athletics, under my above idea, he would make his contribution directly to the NCAA. The NCAA would disperse to Miami and Miami would allocate as the deem appropriate. Moderate Player stipends would exist in this world for sport that generate revenue. The non-revenue models are untouched. THIS way... Rules infractions would result in Money being with held/forfeited by the NCAA and less money for stipends.The cash penalties are the stick for everyone to behave.

This aside, I think we need to see what comes from the NCAA saber rattling on this debacle. Expansion is SO premature at this point and perhaps unnecessary when they get done doing whatever it is they are going to do.

If we are to expand, I'd like to see the ACC focus on its core competencies in its next membership drive.

[CameronBornAndBred]

People talk about ECU as a potential addition, but while I think it makes sense from a geography standpoint I give it no chance of happening. Why? Non-NC schools already complain that the ACC is too NC-centric. Why would they approve the addition of another Carolina school.
Another thing about ECU is that they are good in two sports...footbal and baseball. Their basketball program is awful, although maybe getting somewhat better. But ACC better? No. They will get slaughtered and be a bottom feeder for a long time. On top of it, about a 3rd of their women's team was arrested this summer for various charges, mostly fraud, so not only are they going to be bad, they are in shambles. Oh, one last thing...every sport is on probation now due to a cheating scandal involving the baseball and women's tennis teams.

[sagegrouse]

There are a lot of insightful posts here. I hope I am not duplicating any main points unnecessarily -- I had a post drafted that I thought was submitted, but it doesn't seem to be in the thread.

The conference changes are a matter of plate tectonics, not of a team or two seeking a better situation. And when it comes to that, the ACC ranks fourth, as Oly Fan pointed out.

What the ACC decides to do will be in response to (a) losing schools or (b) a situation where it is clear that conferences must expand to 16 teams to get the right cable contracts.

WRT loss of schools, I am not sure the ACC is in real jeopardy.

(1) Surely the SEC would not add FSU, Miami, GT or Clemson without the support of the SEC member from the same state. I can't see it happening, esp. with the Florida schools. WRT Georgia Tech, I remember when Bobby Dodd took the school out of the SEC because of the gladiator mentality there and the no-nothing approach to academic standards. Is Ga. Tech going back when the situation is even worse, and what do the Bulldogs think about it.

(2) Barring a complete meltdown, I don't see the four North Carolina schools splitting up. It may be blind loyalty or it may be the inherent rationale, even the luxury, of having four schools in a major conference within 100 miles of each other. It produces rivalry, promotes attendance, and minimizes logistics. Also, FWIW the Big Four have disproportionate infuence in conference matters.

(3) Maybe the SEC covets Va. Tech, but I dunno -- it seems to me that the ACC didn't even want them.

(4) Maryland may succumb to being wooed by the Big Ten -- it needs the money. But I am not sure how attractive the Terps -- or their fans -- are to the nice burghers of the U.S. midlands. Maryland seems to be a bit far away for the SEC, but who knows? I can't see Maryland, a second division team in the ACC much of the last decade, finding the SEC a good set of football matchups.

(5) BC isn't going anywhere, I predict.

If all the sticks are thrown into the middle of the table for the purpose of forming four new conferences, I would guess that most of the ACC members would end up in a league with the better Big East football schools (Pitt, Syracuse, etc.).

sagegrouse

[Indoor66]

I read this thread and seem to conclude that I must be stupid. What does anyone, including TV or ESPN, see as a value added to having four or so super conferences of sixteen teams? There is no rational method of having any form of meaningful competition to determine a conference champion in football. Basketball suffers the same problem - no round robin - and we see what the schedule in the Big East does. Some are loaded and some are weak. We even see this in the ACC with twelve teams.

What, pray tell, is the benefit of a sixteen team conference? It seems like stupidity to me. Better to have eight team conferences and use the bowls as the basis for a football playoff among conference champions - who got that way by winning their conference after playing all of its members!

IMO (no humble here, ever) this would be a more meaningful method of determining who is best rather than conference champs crowned based on unbalanced schedules.

[Verga3]

There are a lot of insightful posts here. I hope I am not duplicating any main points unnecessarily -- I had a post drafted that I thought was submitted, but it doesn't seem to be in the thread.

The conference changes are a matter of plate tectonics, not of a team or two seeking a better situation. And when it comes to that, the ACC ranks fourth, as Oly Fan pointed out.

What the ACC decides to do will be in response to (a) losing schools or (b) a situation where it is clear that conferences must expand to 16 teams to get the right cable contracts.

WRT loss of schools, I am not sure the ACC is in real jeopardy.

(1) Surely the SEC would not add FSU, Miami, GT or Clemson without the support of the SEC member from the same state. I can't see it happening, esp. with the Florida schools. WRT Georgia Tech, I remember when Bobby Dodd took the school out of the SEC because of the gladiator mentality there and the no-nothing approach to academic standards. Is Ga. Tech going back when the situation is even worse, and what do the Bulldogs think about it.

(2) Barring a complete meltdown, I don't see the four North Carolina schools splitting up. It may be blind loyalty or it may be the inherent rationale, even the luxury, of having four schools in a major conference within 100 miles of each other. It produces rivalry, promotes attendance, and minimizes logistics. Also, FWIW the Big Four have disproportionate infuence in conference matters.

(3) Maybe the SEC covets Va. Tech, but I dunno -- it seems to me that the ACC didn't even want them.

(4) Maryland may succumb to being wooed by the Big Ten -- it needs the money. But I am not sure how attractive the Terps -- or their fans -- are to the nice burghers of the U.S. midlands. Maryland seems to be a bit far away for the SEC, but who knows? I can't see Maryland, a second division team in the ACC much of the last decade, finding the SEC a good set of football matchups.

(5) BC isn't going anywhere, I predict.

If all the sticks are thrown into the middle of the table for the purpose of forming four new conferences, I would guess that most of the ACC members would end up in a league with the better Big East football schools (Pitt, Syracuse, etc.).

sagegrouse

Quality perspectives, sagegrouse. I reluctantly agree with your supposition that the ACC may act in reaction instead of proactively with regard to losing any schools. I would hope that the current environment would encourage the ACC to be proactive and visionary, instead of reactionary. That's not how I want to view my Conference.

Hopefully, the ACC can make the math work with 12 teams. We plausibly could be buffeted into 16. Unless the numbers just don't work with 12, the money would be collectively better and the management/administration of our traditional ACC culture/values would be much easier to maintain with 12.

Responding to your post:

(1) I agree that it would be tough to get current SEC schools to completely embrace Miami and Florida State. But, IMO, it would happen....Florida, etc. be damned. If Miami and Florida State leave, fine. Miami may be "fired" anyway, and who really thinks Florida State is a good cultural fit. I believe that GA Tech and Clemson are invested in the total package that is the ACC and will stay with us.

(2) I completely agree with your desire on keeping the "Big Four" intact. I share it big time.

(3) I believe that the ACC would love to keep VA Tech in the fold. I hope VA Tech feels the same when they are approached by the SEC. What do you think the Hokies football record would be in the SEC?

(4) Maryland stays. Great school (with questionable celebrations....but, gotta love the passion) and the Under Armour alum connection is huge. Wonder how he would like to go elsewhere?

(5) BC stays. They have been more than satisfied with their ACC decision, from what I understand. I think the ACC feels the same.

Whatever unfolds, I believe that our ACC leadership already understands the issues much better than I do. I still believe that the ACC can strike the correct balance between academics and athletics (which is really another topic altogether)....or is it?

[Scorp4me]

I read this thread and seem to conclude that I must be stupid. What does anyone, including TV or ESPN, see as a value added to having four or so super conferences of sixteen teams? There is no rational method of having any form of meaningful competition to determine a conference champion in football. Basketball suffers the same problem - no round robin - and we see what the schedule in the Big East does. Some are loaded and some are weak. We even see this in the ACC with twelve teams.

What, pray tell, is the benefit of a sixteen team conference? It seems like stupidity to me. Better to have eight team conferences and use the bowls as the basis for a football playoff among conference champions - who got that way by winning their conference after playing all of its members!

IMO (no humble here, ever) this would be a more meaningful method of determining who is best rather than conference champs crowned based on unbalanced schedules.

I couldn't agree more Indoor66 and believe much of this could have been avoided had the stipulation that a conference must have 12 teams to have a conference championship game not been there. 8 teams seems to make so much more sense. Already with 16 teams they discuss two divisions so why not just have 8 conferences of 8 instead of 4 conference each with 2 divisions. Even with money being the driving issue...it doesn't make sense.

[sagegrouse]

I couldn't agree more Indoor66 and believe much of this could have been avoided had the stipulation that a conference must have 12 teams to have a conference championship game not been there. 8 teams seems to make so much more sense. Already with 16 teams they discuss two divisions so why not just have 8 conferences of 8 instead of 4 conference each with 2 divisions. Even with money being the driving issue...it doesn't make sense.

You are both right: for competitive balance 8-10 team conferences seem ideal. But from what I read, including the San Jose Mercury article linked on the other thread, the aggregation of schools into very large conferences has to do with negotiating power vis a vis the cable providers -- ESPN, Fox and the like, including the conferences own networks (Big Ten Network w/ Fox). There are few of these distributors. I can understand the principle of leverage if there are few distributors and many small 8-12 team conferences, but I don't fathom the details.

So, blame it on TV and all the mobile devices of the present and future.

sagegrouse

[Jarhead]

I read this thread and seem to conclude that I must be stupid. What does anyone, including TV or ESPN, see as a value added to having four or so super conferences of sixteen teams? There is no rational method of having any form of meaningful competition to determine a conference champion in football. Basketball suffers the same problem - no round robin - and we see what the schedule in the Big East does. Some are loaded and some are weak. We even see this in the ACC with twelve teams.

What, pray tell, is the benefit of a sixteen team conference? It seems like stupidity to me. Better to have eight team conferences and use the bowls as the basis for a football playoff among conference champions - who got that way by winning their conference after playing all of its members!

IMO (no humble here, ever) this would be a more meaningful method of determining who is best rather than conference champs crowned based on unbalanced schedules.

In all of the extreme, baseless speculation that has been posted in the threads on conference realignment, your post is the only one that makes any sense to me. Keep up the good work, Indoor.http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/greetings/waveyellow.gif

[formerdukeathlete]

Plenty of speculation is brewing, so what are some thoughts regarding what the ACC will look like in 2-3 years...and beyond?

An initial assumption would be that Miami and Florida State (or even Va Tech leave for the SEC). The ACC can find 2-3 schools that are a good overall cultural/values/athletics fit. The Miami TV market is big, Tallahassee and Blacksburg less so. Striking the right balance is key.

How about these schools for a short list....some good possible combinations here:

Penn State (national following, maybe Coach K can talk to his new friend, Joe Paterno offline)
Syracuse (NY market)
South Carolina (never should have left...Clemson rivalry)
Vanderbilt (good academics/athletics fit, Nashville market)

If the ACC eventually ends up in a 16-team "super conference" then these teams might be additional candidates:

UConn
Rutgers
East Carolina

East Carolina does zero re the TV contract and way less than zero academically. They have no, zero chance of being invited unless we were to be down more than 4 members, imo. If we were down 1 member I would invite Rutgers. Two members, I would invite as well UConn or Pitt. Were we to need 4 members, I would invite 3 Northern teams and South Carolina, for starters. Florida and Vanderbilt might consider, were we able to get close to duplicating the SEC tv contract numbers. Penn State would be a home run. There may be a greater chance of Duke going to the Big Ten than Penn State coming to the ACC.

[uh_no]

East Carolina does zero re the TV contract and way less than zero academically. They have no, zero chance of being invited unless we were to be down more than 4 members, imo. If we were down 1 member I would invite Rutgers. Two members, I would invite as well UConn or Pitt. Were we to need 4 members, I would invite 3 Northern teams and South Carolina, for starters. Florida and Vanderbilt might consider, were we able to get close to duplicating the SEC tv contract numbers. Penn State would be a home run. There may be a greater chance of Duke going to the Big Ten than Penn State coming to the ACC.

Not in a hundred years.

[Verga3]

East Carolina does zero re the TV contract and way less than zero academically. They have no, zero chance of being invited unless we were to be down more than 4 members, imo. If we were down 1 member I would invite Rutgers. Two members, I would invite as well UConn or Pitt. Were we to need 4 members, I would invite 3 Northern teams and South Carolina, for starters. Florida and Vanderbilt might consider, were we able to get close to duplicating the SEC tv contract numbers. Penn State would be a home run. There may be a greater chance of Duke going to the Big Ten than Penn State coming to the ACC.

Hey, but East Carolina would be a FUN foil to NC State and UNC in football. Some real fall hate has perculated there...but ONLY if the ACC has to go to 16 schools. Granted, outside football, ECU would be overmatched. That should be studied. But if you forget TV and all the rest, this is about an unrequieted passion on the part of our friends in Greenville to kick the #@*& out of the Heels and the Pack. Forget the money, this would be good, clean (NOT) fun if we were ever to go to 16.

Fun to speculate, but Penn State and South Carolina would be terrific additions. Vandy is probably the most probable of the SEC schools. I like your thinking by mentioning Florida, but don't think that can happen. Time will tell.

[A-Tex Devil]

Texas' new deal for the Longhorn network is what has destablized the Big 12.


I'm sorry, and maybe this belongs in the other thread, but this is Aggie spin.

The Longhorn Network and Texas isn't what is destabilizing the Big XII. Texa A&M is using the Longhorn Network as an excuse. A&M had been a very successful athletic department on the field the last two years. But their leadership completely dropped the ball. They were given the opportunity to team up with Texas 50/50 several years ago when a network was still a risky proposition and they turned Texas down. Texas pushed forward and spent money and resources to build the infrastructure to have it's own network or be part of another conference network. Now it has it and the money, and it's ESPNs job to find providers and subscriptions (remember, viewer ratings aren't as important with cable). Instead, A&M's athletic department went $16m into debt and fired it's president when she had the audacity to ask the ath dept to pay back the general fund.

The PAC 16 was about to happen last year. A&M balked, and A&M and Texas worked together to save the Big XII. Texas had even spent time and money to have a grand press conference in front of the tower to announce the Pac 16 move and had to scuttle it. Fast forward tomsix months or so ago when the LHN network was announces. A&M is "shocked". Really? Everyone knew that Texas was doing this. The first several months of spin from A&M was doubting the success of the network. The last two have been spent railing on the unfair advantage it gives Texas. Which is it, because it can't be both?

I understand why A&M is moving to the SEC. It is stabler (not to say the Big XII is unstable if A&M would stay) and if they get the invite they should take it. The SEC would take Texas too in a heartbeat but Texas will never join that conference (although while the SEC isn't ideal, I wish Texas would leave it as an option). The rest of the Big XII, save Mizzou, are committed to the conference. Mizzou has verbally committed their loyalty but that is shaky. People forget that they started everything last year when they lifted their skirt in front of the Big Ten. If the Aggies get poached and Mizzou sticks around, the Big XII will swing for the fences with Notre Dame and fail, then add BYU. Book it. That Big XII is arguably stronger than with Texas A&M because of BYU's national presence. If Mizzou leaves, that is the tectonic shift that will create mass change prior to 2014 in my mind.

Anyway, sorry for the rant here. But the "destabilization" of the Big XII is simply due to the Aggies having a chance to go to a stronger conference (a move that will likely cost them money over the next 3-5 years due to exit fees). I don't begrudge them the move. If they believe the Big XII is unstable (although they are frankly the cause right now) they should make sure they have a chair when the music stops. Texas' chair will always be there. But blaming the network is A&M's way of pointing the finger at Texas should the Big XII dissolve.

[laxbluedevil]

Maryland and Penn State are huge keys to the east coast market, and UConn. Big 10 and SEC should go after Maryland, and maybe Duke and UNC, or VA Tech or UVA. Big 10 should never have added Nebraska with its tiny population. Adding the Terps to go with Penn State would have destroyed the ACC because then it would lose DC and Baltimore, and have nothing between Charlottesville and Boston. BC would have left. ACC isn't broadcast in NY or PA or most of the midatlantic or northeast, and nobody in Boston cares and would be crazy if they did. Adding VA Tech instead of Syracuse hurt the TV market and future potential. ACC was too scared and weak to consider asking Penn State to join, now it may be too late, the ACC may not be salvageable. Now there are even more schools, and most of the 12, centered around one state, NC. If ACC wants to make money, if would find some way to add Penn State and UConn, and maybe Syracuse. It's not good to have more than one school per eastern state in most cases, four is extremely bad. NC State and Wake Forest are pretty worthless, especially to a conference that already has Duke and UNC and tons of other nearby schools. VA Tech is good in football now but recruits poorly due to location and has been passed by FSU according to most, and the miracle worker Beamer is close to retirement. Sending NC State, Wake Forest, and maybe VA Tech to the Big East for Penn State, UConn, and maybe Syracuse, would do wonders for the ACC's revenue, power, and exposure. That won't happen, too bad.

Given the limited prospects for improvement, maybe Duke should go independent like Notre Dame, maybe with Texas, Stanford? Duke is on TV more than any other college program but conferences like the ACC exist to share TV money equally, robbing Duke most of any school in the nation. Why is TV money shared equally but ticket revenue from football isn't shared at all, again this hurts Duke. Not only that, ACC gives archrival UNC homecourt advantage not only in the ACC mens hoops tournament, but every tournament for every mens and womens sport. So Duke is screwed 3 ways, really in every possible way. Scheduling sucks with 12 teams that don't all play each other in football and no home and home in hoops. Wake Forest football with an easy schedule won an ACC title in an empty stadium making ACC even more of a joke. Coastal football is much much tougher than Atlantic, that's BS. No regional TV for all those Duke alums north of Baltimore, and all those prospective applicants never see Duke or want to apply. Duke would make a lot more money with its own TV deal in basketball alone and could negotiate with ESPN to have more lacrosse and other sports on as well. With Notre Dame not being what it used to be, Duke and Notre Dame could negotiate together with Fox or NBC or ESPN to buy ND football and hoops and Duke basketball and football, as well as other sports like lacrosse.

If that's too extreme, maybe Duke, UNC, UVA, and Maryland, the 4 mens lacrosse schools should form its own mini conference and pick and choose who it adds from there. Like Penn State (Big TEN has TWELVE schools splitting revenue from the middle of nowhere, while this new conference would split the whole east coast just 8 ways, so more money), UConn, Georgia Tech, Florida State. 8 schools, ideal scheduling in all sports, great at everything. TV up and down the whole east coast, start its own cable network, if Texas can do it surely these 8 can and have all its teams on all the time plus HS games, academic programs, etc.

[laxbluedevil]

If 8 schools, Florida State, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVA, Maryland, Penn State, and UConn, don't get the whole east coast, maybe add BC and Syracuse for 10 schools (or less likely BC and Clemson, or BC and Miami). 10 or 8 should be based on whether networks like ESPN or Fox or cable and satellite carriers in the northeast think it's necessary or if it makes sense financially or otherwise. Locking up Syracuse and BC should prevent any future incursions into its territory, so 10 might be best. Having a northern half (but no divisions) of BC, Syracuse, UConn, Penn State, and Maryland, could prove irresistible for Penn State, because these are its traditional rivals going back a hundred years. Nittanys basically never played any Big 10 schools before joining it just 18 years ago, their tradition with the eastern schools dwarfs their fake new rivalries with the B10/11/12 (nearest Ohio State cares only about Michigan). In B10/11/12, PSU is screwed more than any other in travel, unlike in a new eastern conference they would be right in the middle of, with better academic peers as well. They'd also make far more TV and cable money with 1/8 or 1/10 of entire east which has most of the US population and media, instead of 1/12 or 1/16 of middle of nowhere. 10 schools could still play all others in football and all sports and have home and home in hoops. The other ACC and Big East schools would form a BCS conference too so it's not like they'd be screwed, on the contrary, they'd be playing a proper level of competition so would win more. Negotiate everything including a humongous deal with ESPN/ABC or Fox or NBC or CBS, and sign the papers for a conference cable network before making the moves.

[sagegrouse]

Maryland and Penn State are huge keys to the east coast market, and UConn. Big 10 and SEC should go after Maryland, and maybe Duke and UNC, or VA Tech or UVA. Big 10 should never have added Nebraska with its tiny population. Adding the Terps to go with Penn State would have destroyed the ACC because then it would lose DC and Baltimore, and have nothing between Charlottesville and Boston. BC would have left. ACC isn't broadcast in NY or PA or most of the midatlantic or northeast, and nobody in Boston cares and would be crazy if they did. Adding VA Tech instead of Syracuse hurt the TV market and future potential. ACC was too scared and weak to consider asking Penn State to join, now it may be too late, the ACC may not be salvageable. Now there are even more schools, and most of the 12, centered around one state, NC. If ACC wants to make money, if would find some way to add Penn State and UConn, and maybe Syracuse. It's not good to have more than one school per eastern state in most cases, four is extremely bad. NC State and Wake Forest are pretty worthless, especially to a conference that already has Duke and UNC and tons of other nearby schools. VA Tech is good in football now but recruits poorly due to location and has been passed by FSU according to most, and the miracle worker Beamer is close to retirement. Sending NC State, Wake Forest, and maybe VA Tech to the Big East for Penn State, UConn, and maybe Syracuse, would do wonders for the ACC's revenue, power, and exposure. That won't happen, too bad.

Given the limited prospects for improvement, maybe Duke should go independent like Notre Dame, maybe with Texas, Stanford? Duke is on TV more than any other college program but conferences like the ACC exist to share TV money equally, robbing Duke most of any school in the nation. Why is TV money shared equally but ticket revenue from football isn't shared at all, again this hurts Duke. Not only that, ACC gives archrival UNC homecourt advantage not only in the ACC mens hoops tournament, but every tournament for every mens and womens sport. So Duke is screwed 3 ways, really in every possible way. Scheduling sucks with 12 teams that don't all play each other in football and no home and home in hoops. Wake Forest football with an easy schedule won an ACC title in an empty stadium making ACC even more of a joke. Coastal football is much much tougher than Atlantic, that's BS. No regional TV for all those Duke alums north of Baltimore, and all those prospective applicants never see Duke or want to apply. Duke would make a lot more money with its own TV deal in basketball alone and could negotiate with ESPN to have more lacrosse and other sports on as well. With Notre Dame not being what it used to be, Duke and Notre Dame could negotiate together with Fox or NBC or ESPN to buy ND football and hoops and Duke basketball and football, as well as other sports like lacrosse.

If that's too extreme, maybe Duke, UNC, UVA, and Maryland, the 4 mens lacrosse schools should form its own mini conference and pick and choose who it adds from there. Like Penn State (Big TEN has TWELVE schools splitting revenue from the middle of nowhere, while this new conference would split the whole east coast just 8 ways, so more money), UConn, Georgia Tech, Florida State. 8 schools, ideal scheduling in all sports, great at everything. TV up and down the whole east coast, start its own cable network, if Texas can do it surely these 8 can and have all its teams on all the time plus HS games, academic programs, etc.

Laxbluedevil, you have an interesting writing style -- kinda like diatribe raised to high art. I thought it was very effective in TSO/Sylvia Hatchell post down the page. Here I think it just makes a mess of a complex problem.

First, you would make an excellent game theorist, as you seem to be plotting strategy for the Big Ten and the SEC to destroy the ACC. But I don't think that's the case. I think the Big Ten has higher motives (and lots of bucks from its own Fox-run network), as reflected in its addition to the fold of Nebraska over the supplicant Mizzou. Academics has always seemed more important to the Big Ten and the ACC than to the other conferences. The Big Ten is set for the next 19 years (the duration of the BTN contract), and I think it would take unusual circumstances (an application from Notre Dame?) to expand further.

The SEC could care less about the ACC, except to be envious of its basketball rep. The SEC has said it will not proselytize from other conferences, and -- yeah -- I know there are more subtle ways of going about it, but still.... And WRT any athletic conference, getting a decision on any important subject seems very difficult, rather than the execution of a strategic concept.

Second, why is Maryland a steal? I have lived in DC for most of the past several decades, and UMd is below the radar unless it has an exceptional football or basketball team. And the Terps clearly rank well below the four pro teams. I mean most of the DC area isn't in Maryland (and FWIW I seem to see more Penn State bumber stickers that Terp ones). Both UVa and VT have substantial support. Anyway, Maryland is hardly a thriving program economically, as articles on this site have related.

Third, "the ACC was too scared and weak to ask Penn State to join." Really? C'mon man. You can do better than that.

Fourth, "it's not good to have more than one team per eastern state..., four is extremely bad." Geography aside, why is it OK to have two teams from Ala., Miss., and Tenn. but not from NC, Florida or Virginia?

I think the core group of ACC teams -- the Big Four plus Clemson and UVa -- are happy as clams to be members of the ACC. It's a traditional conference, where schools are close together and rivalries are important. Is it the television footprint to which you are referring? Maybe the ACC will be forced to change radically but it seems like it will take a real tsunami to pry these six teams apart. Plus, GT and VT seem to be equally happy, even if not part of the founding group. Nor have I read about concerns among the other members, esp. Miami, which was tickled pink to be invited.

Five, Duke as an independent? That sounds to me like a recipe for becoming a Division II school, even in basketball.

sagegrouse
'I suppose in this post the emphasis is on the second syllable of my name'

[Mal]

...Locking up Syracuse and BC should prevent any future incursions into its territory, so 10 might be best. Having a northern half (but no divisions) of BC, Syracuse, UConn, Penn State, and Maryland, could prove irresistible for Penn State, because these are its traditional rivals going back a hundred years. Nittanys basically never played any Big 10 schools before joining it just 18 years ago, their tradition with the eastern schools dwarfs their fake new rivalries with the B10/11/12 (nearest Ohio State cares only about Michigan). In B10/11/12, PSU is screwed more than any other in travel, unlike in a new eastern conference they would be right in the middle of, with better academic peers as well. They'd also make far more TV and cable money with 1/8 or 1/10 of entire east which has most of the US population and media, instead of 1/12 or 1/16 of middle of nowhere...

I know we're all pipedreaming a little here, but maybe we should put the idea of Penn State out of our heads. They would have to be insane to leave the safe, profitable confines of the Big Ten to join some brand new conference with no guarantee of any particular TV contracts, lesser academics than their current conference, and no more regional ties than where they sit currently. Boston's about the same distance as Indianapolis from State College, and Atlanta and Tallahassee are no closer to Penn State than Madison. Granted, Lincoln and Minneapolis are a long way away, but it's just another hour on a plane. Central PA is probably not as different culturally from most of the midwest than it is Georgia or the Carolinas, or even New England. Penn State's just announced they're going D-1 in hockey, and would miss out on the potential new megazilla Big Ten hockey conference (which, having Michigan, MSU, Minnesota and Wisconsin would house about 25 national titles and would relegate every other conference but Hockey East to third class status) if they were to leave. And, PSU has (I think) grown to like the football rivalries it has with Ohio State and Iowa, especially. To leave all that behind for FSU, a northeast football program 50 years on from its heyday, a few up-and-comers and some also-rans is just never going to happen.

Also, let's remember that the northeast, while hosting a massive population, by and large doesn't care about college sports. I'd venture that the entirety NYC, Connecticut, Jersey and Philly provide no more people watching a random Saturday afternoon network college football game (other than perhaps Notre Dame games) than Ohio or Michigan.

[laxbluedevil]

I think pretty much all VA Tech and Clemson and FSU fans want to be in SEC. Lots of Terps want to be in Big 10.

The one thing that could hold up my plans is UNC would greedily want to keep its advantage of having the ACC tournament in NC every year so would try to resist unless forced to join or perish. I would advise the non-NC schools to demand that ACC tournaments for all sports move from DC to Atlanta to St Petersburg only for the next 50 years to make up for it being in NC every year to give unfair advantages to the NC schools. Duke should be fine with it since its alums are more spread out than any school in the nation and ultimately wants the northern exposure and new conference this brings. Also demand less money for Wake Forest and NC State since they don't bring in the TV contract dollars. Since that's not happening, they could simply leave the other NC schools. Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, UVA, Maryland, BC, add UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, 9 schools. Invite UNC first, then Clemson or Miami. If UNC fails to accept, enjoy the mid majors and never getting to play any of their longtime rivals! This would form the best and most profitable conference in the country and dominate the whole east coast.

[laxbluedevil]

Penn State has sucked in all sports since joining the B10/11/12. This decision would be made by President, trustees, profs, administrators, and guess what, they know how to count, and 12 is not a Big Ten! Penn State has longtime rivalries with Syracuse, BC, Maryland, Connecticut, playing them several dozens of times every year through the decades, while almost never playing any B10/11/12 school before joining 18 years ago. That alone right there tells you Penn State IS and always has been an eastern school and state. Travel would be much better in my eastern conference they would be right in the MIDDLE of. Academics would be much better, Duke, UVA, UNC, BC, GA Tech, Syracuse, etc.? Money would be much bigger in a 10 team conference dominating the east coast with more than half the US population and money and media, instead of splitting 12 or 16 ways in the middle of nowhere, empty corn fields and a dying rust belt that everyone with any common sense is fleeing along with all their cash and companies. BC dominates hockey too, if Penn State is just going D1 they'll want to ease into it with the rest of my eastern league. Penn State loves lacrosse, they just hired the final four Cornell coach, and they'd be in the best lacrosse conference by far with Syracuse, UVA, UNC, and Duke. My eastern conference would dominate basketball mens and womens, football, lacrosse, and all other sports, and make way more money than B10/11/12 in their empty cornfield dying rust belt. Great academics?? Idiots don't even know how to count!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Penn State has sucked in all sports since joining the B10/11/12.

Football 2010 lost in the Outback bowl (Duke didn't bowl)
Men's soccer enters 2011 ranked 18th. (Duke is 12th)
Women's soccer has won 13 straight Big ten titles, and lost in semi's of NCAA tourney last year. (Duke women lost in quaters of ACC tourney and 3rd round of NCAA's)
Women's basketball, lost in second round of NCAA's. (25-10 overall)
Lacrosse. (Penn state does suck at lacrosse)
Baseball, respectable record, lost twice but made it to the Big Ten tourney. (Duke didn't make it to the ACC tourney, and usually doesn't)
Women's volleyball 4 years straight NCAA champions (beating Duke in the process last year).

Just pointing out that before you make a blanket statement lilke "Penn State has sucked in all sports" do some research first. If I were a fan of the Nittany Lions, I'd be pretty happy and proud.

[laxbluedevil]

My eastern league would be better in all those sports you mentioned except maybe football and that's ideal too! Only sport Penn State cares about is football and they've sucked in the B10/11/12. Schools want to be in the toughest basketball league ever to prep for NCAA tournament and same goes for all sports except football. Too tough in football means not playing for national titles or even conference titles or bowls, so this is ideal, means they can schedule tough out of conference like Ohio State, Pitt, WVU, and still play for a national title. Penn State could actually win the conference against FSU and the like, but if they want a stronger conference, BC or Syracuse can be easily switched for Clemson or Miami with minimal effect, I think they'd prefer more northern schools and locking down the whole eastern TV market though.

Better yet, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, UVA, Maryland, BC, UConn, Syracuse, and Penn State, should offer UNC a spot as the 10th member. Make it clear NC State (or Clemson or Miami) will be the 10th member if they don't accept! Make sure my new conference rules state that in the first few years the majority can leave at any time so after a few years of refusing to schedule them and laying waste to UNC's athletic program and hearing the lamentations and pleading of their baby blue fans, the first 9 can leave NC State or whoever and join with a pathetic whipped UNC which will learn to love their new conference, or NC State will just become the new UNC!

[Indoor66]

My eastern league would be better in all those sports you mentioned except maybe football and that's ideal too! Only sport Penn State cares about is football and they've sucked in the B10/11/12. Schools want to be in the toughest basketball league ever to prep for NCAA tournament and same goes for all sports except football. Too tough in football means not playing for national titles or even conference titles or bowls, so this is ideal, means they can schedule tough out of conference like Ohio State, Pitt, WVU, and still play for a national title. Penn State could actually win the conference against FSU and the like, but if they want a stronger conference, BC or Syracuse can be easily switched for Clemson or Miami with minimal effect, I think they'd prefer more northern schools and locking down the whole eastern TV market though.

Better yet, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, UVA, Maryland, BC, UConn, Syracuse, and Penn State, should offer UNC a spot as the 10th member. Make it clear NC State (or Clemson or Miami) will be the 10th member if they don't accept! Make sure my new conference rules state that in the first few years the majority can leave at any time so after a few years of refusing to schedule them and laying waste to UNC's athletic program and hearing the lamentations and pleading of their baby blue fans, the first 9 can leave NC State or whoever and join with a pathetic whipped UNC which will learn to love their new conference, or NC State will just become the new UNC!

Kind of a scorched earth approach.

Maybe we should just raze all the buildings in chapel hill and sow the earth with salt.

[Kedsy]

My eastern league would be...

Is this thread about what might actually happen, or about pipe dreams scribbled on the backs of bar napkins?

[laxbluedevil]

This should absolutely happen, best and most profitable and stable and ideal conference in every way! Anybody got anything better, or is that even theoretically possible?

[J.Blink]

Sounds boring and awful to me...

[devildeac]

Kind of a scorched earth approach.

Maybe we should just raze all the buildings in chapel hill and sow the earth with salt.

I suspect that second sentence for which you edited your post might gain at least a little bit of traction around here...
;)

[laxbluedevil]

Why, what's the alternative, wait and be picked apart? Is the best case scenario to stay the same and continue to suck? ACC is 4th at best, and declining and unstable, or maybe even 6th of 6, didn't Big East sign a better TV deal than ACC, or are expected to? Problems are no exposure in PA, NY, DE, NJ, etc., or most of midatlantic or northeast. Non-NC schools don't like never winning ACC tournaments in NC with tar heel fans all over. Not enough money, athletic departments losing money. Football and basketball get no respect. Coastal crushes Atlantic football, and crushes Duke and UNC. 10 or 8 is far better than 12 or 14 or 16, far fairer too. Plus playing all teams in football and home in home in hoops, there is no alternative to that, period. NC State, Wake Forest, not carrying their weight. Duke not getting any shared ticket revenue but has to give its TV money to Clemson and Wake? What about any of this is fun or exciting? Wake Forest, NC State, VA Tech, Clemson, Miami, would compete much better be in a BCS Big East, better for them too, and the rest of the Big East.

Why would any of the presidents and administrators of Florida State, GA Tech, Duke, UNC, UVA, Maryland, Penn State, UConn, Syracuse, BC, turn it down? They could extricate themselves from potential death penalty programs like Miami and Clemson, stop being some smalltime regional conference and school, improve academics and selectivity, greatly increase money and stability and success and prestige, and exposure to all those potential applicants and donors. Think all those NY, PA, northeast alums will start donating money when they see their teams on TV? Think those kids will start applying and matriculating instead of turning down Duke, what is it 4 to 1 for Penn or Bowdoin or whatever? The schools want the most money and prestige and be the best, that's their job, they wouldn't be allowed to turn it down and keep their jobs. What reason could any of them come up with against it?

[A-Tex Devil]

My, this got out of hand..... laxbluedevil isn't completely off base here. One of the things on the table for Texas if A&M. Mizzou and 2 ACC schools go to the SEC is to talk to some friends and develop a more "national" conference - let's call it a confederation. Texas, Notre Dame and BYU athletic departments have gotten VERY close in the past year. Now maybe that's because Texas is strking a path to being independent as Aggies would have you believe. In fact, Texas wants the OPTION to be independent in case things go sideways with the Big XII, but they'd prefer to be in a conference.

Who would be in such a conference? Well, Texas, BYU and Notre Dame, as mentioned. Probably Kansas and Texas Tech. But the others in this scenario would probably be the remnants of the ACC. Perhaps Duke, UNC, MD, FSU and Ga Tech.

Now I don't think any of this will happen (at least not in the next round of alignment whenever A&M finally gets that invite they've claimed to have for over a year). I think A&M and one ACC school (likely Va Tech) will move to the SEC. The Big XII will add BYU and the ACC will poach Pitt or Syracuse or Louisville, and we will stabilize again.

But if the ACC loses 2 teams to the SEC and the Big XII dissolves, katie bar the door (or however you say it).

[fan345678]

Is this thread about what might actually happen, or about pipe dreams scribbled on the backs of bar napkins?

I have yet to read much, if anything, in this thread that might actually happen. The SEC does not want Miami and has no reason to want them (especially now). They would not fit in the SEC at all. The TV market assumptions in this thread (i.e.- that a school's TV market is limited to the town in which the school is located...except, somehow, for Penn State, Syracuse, and UConn) are out of touch with reality, as is any suggestion that the ACC simply focus on basketball. Also, the amount of energy spent on ECU in this thread is just embarrassing. The only reasonable posts from a conference realignment perspective in this thread have come from Olympic Fan and perhaps A-Tex Devil.

[sporthenry]

Well lets just get over Penn State. They aren't leaving the Big 10. Big 10 boasts 8 schools of 40,000+ enrollment compared to 1 of those schools in the ACC. Penn State just looks more like a Big Ten school than an ACC school and they get a boat load of money from the Big Ten network. And the TV networks don't work as cleanly as some make it out to be. Maryland doesn't get you DC, Rutgers doesn't get you NY, etc. As someone said earlier about the SEC, their successful b/c they promote a brand which pretty much boils down to top 10 or top 20 match ups every Saturday. Yes, they have decent alumni bases and also the South can get chaotic at times following the local football team, but most importantly, they can get the Northeast and the rest of the country b/c its the closest thing to the NFL. People want to watch good football and playing the regional game can only get you so far.

And the ACC isn't in a situation to be proactive about this. They don't really have much incentives to offer a Penn State or any other team that could go to the SEC. Heck, they probably are more concerned with keeping their own members for the time being. The current size of the ACC is obviously beneficial b/c they get the ACC Championship game which has become very important financially. So they aren't going to downsize so you can get home and home basketball games. There are also a lot of other factors that go into this all but ultimately the ACC will be reactive and the size of the conferences will be determined by the SEC or Big Ten. The independent conferences won't work b/c of the travel between BYU, Duke, Texas, ND, etc. I'm assuming these are more than just football conferences b/c if they are just football conferences, then it is way too early to tell how the rest of the sports like basketball will turn out conference wise.

It will be interesting to see what happens but it does appear the 16 team conferences are an option and if that happened will likely become a Pac 10 with some Big 12 teams, the SEC with some Big 12/ACC teams, the Big 10 will probably grab ND and some Big East teams and then its the leftovers of the ACC/Big East. But it would be interesting to see what happens with Georgetown or Nova who have FCS football teams. But ultimately, if it goes to 16 teams, I would assume if you aren't in one of those conferences, football would not be very profitable and since that funds a lot of other sports, who knows what would happen to the rest of these teams.

[J.Blink]

laxbluedevil,

Wasn't it you that started a thread awhile back about how Coach Danowski was leaving for Rutgers, Duke was doomed (and forever doomed!) and it was all because of the horribly negligent Duke administration and that everybody had to ACT NOW to stop him from leaving? And then again more recently about another assistant coach (whose name/sport I am leaving out since I believe the thread was deleted because of rumor mongering) and how the whole saga points to institutional rot, etc?

Do you just really like a good conspiracy / drama / tragedy / have-to-act-now-or-the-ACC-is-DOOOOMED or what?

Personally I grew up in ACC territory and the prospect of adding the northeast TV market to make the doomed ACC great again seems like a horrible prospect to me. I absolutely get that if you're not from NC, that having Duke, UNC,NCSU, and Wake as an integral part of fairly regionally compact league doesn't mean anything to you. I get that if you weren't an ACC fan before recently that you probably don't miss old rivalry games in football every year (instead of maybe once every three). I liked those things, miss those things, and don't feel like my enjoyment has increased by having BC and Miami around. When it comes to sports and the ACC, that's pretty much all I care about--enjoyment. Money's fine, but I like the rivalries.

I'd just as well have Duke leave the sports rat race (or diminish in importance) than all this hyperbole and worry about multi-million dollar contracts, finding the best TV deal, playing the game of geo-sports-politics, etc. I'm sure that you completely disagree with me on the importance of sports and what not, but at the very least, take a breath! Your posts are entertaining and full of ... energy ... but I can't say I really get where you're coming from.

[formerdukeathlete]

laxbluedevil,

Wasn't it you that started a thread awhile back about how Coach Danowski was leaving for Rutgers, Duke was doomed (and forever doomed!) and it was all because of the horribly negligent Duke administration and that everybody had to ACT NOW to stop him from leaving? And then again more recently about another assistant coach (whose name/sport I am leaving out since I believe the thread was deleted because of rumor mongering) and how the whole saga points to institutional rot, etc?

Do you just really like a good conspiracy / drama / tragedy / have-to-act-now-or-the-ACC-is-DOOOOMED or what?

Personally I grew up in ACC territory and the prospect of adding the northeast TV market to make the doomed ACC great again seems like a horrible prospect to me. I absolutely get that if you're not from NC, that having Duke, UNC,NCSU, and Wake as an integral part of fairly regionally compact league doesn't mean anything to you. I get that if you weren't an ACC fan before recently that you probably don't miss old rivalry games in football every year (instead of maybe once every three). I liked those things, miss those things, and don't feel like my enjoyment has increased by having BC and Miami around. When it comes to sports and the ACC, that's pretty much all I care about--enjoyment. Money's fine, but I like the rivalries.

I'd just as well have Duke leave the sports rat race (or diminish in importance) than all this hyperbole and worry about multi-million dollar contracts, finding the best TV deal, playing the game of geo-sports-politics, etc. I'm sure that you completely disagree with me on the importance of sports and what not, but at the very least, take a breath! Your posts are entertaining and full of ... energy ... but I can't say I really get where you're coming from.

I think Pitt and Penn State recruit better as members of the ACC. Check where they tend to recruit players. Penn State recruits Virginia heavily. Boston College applications from the
Southeast are way up since joining the ACC. lax devil is on to something here. Maybe plan the next Northern expansion around the schools which work for Penn State as a package deal. They might be Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Viirginia.

[sagegrouse]

But if the ACC loses 2 teams to the SEC and the Big XII dissolves, katie bar the door (or however you say it).

Yep, and if it rains for 40 days and 40 nights, we'll call on Noah to build his ark....

Let me postulate (ooohhh!!!) that these scenarios are pretty much in the category of "starting over." Plate tectonics, as I mentioned earlier, and not marginal adjustments.

Why do I say, "starting over?" Well, no team currently in the ACC has shown any interest in joining the SEC. Why would any ACC team want to play eight football games a year against SEC opponents, especially with the suspect academics and the buying and selling of players that goes on? Why would the SEC approve admission of any school from the states of SC, GA, and FL over the express opposition of the member school from that state? If you are saying I am making conference politics sound like a country club or a fraternity, you bet!

So, if you want to speculate that the Big 12 disbands and two ACC teams opt for the SEC, there are probably dozens of equally plausible scenarios that would lead to massive changes in the conference alignment. Moreover and especially, there is the point that these two things are unlikely to coincide: if the Big 12 disbands, the SEC will have plenty of applicants from the residue. Second, if two ACC teams "magically" apply to join the SEC, then why would the Big 12 be under any pressure whatsoever?

sagegrouse

[A-Tex Devil]

Yep, and if it rains for 40 days and 40 nights, we'll call on Noah to build his ark....



Honestly, I'd love it if no ACC teams took the SEC bait and left A&M out in the cold, because I don't think that the SEC will take on just one team leaving them at 13 (which is much more untenable than 11 (which the Big 10 dealt with for several years and the ACC for one) for myriad reasons). A&M would be crawling back to the Big XII and we'd be fine.

But the SEC wants A&M. To do that, they'll need a second team. Mizzou is the easiest choice, but it's not as sexy as one of the ACC programs. If that 14th team ends up being Mizzou, then the ACC is fine, and I think the Big XII goes away. Texas, Texas Tech, OU, and OSU go to the Pac 10 and some combination of KSU, KU, Iowa St. and Baylor will go to the Big East. I'll note that the Big East was in serious discussiont with KU and K-State when it looked like the Pac 16 was happening last year.

But to answer your points:


If the Big 12 disbands, the SEC will have plenty of applicants from the residue.

The only teams in the Big XII that the SEC wants are Texas, Texas A&M and OU, with an "eh, I guess so" for Mizzou. OU and OSU are tied at the hip and OU has stated over and over that it is doing what Texas is doing -- which is not the SEC. Also, the Big XII only disbands if the SEC takes on two or more of its teams -- which would put them at 14 or 16 already. They can't take everyone, and as stated they want hardly anyone that is willing to come. Long story short, you may say that the SEC can pick up the dregs of the Big XII, but the only ones that would both get an invite and accept that invite while the Big XII exists are A&M, and Mizzou. If the Big XII dissolves (assuming A&M goes to the SEC), Texas, TTech, OU and OSU are 5x more likely to end up in the Pac 12 or even Big Ten than the SEC, and the SEC won't take on KU. I'll ignore KSU, Iowa St. and Baylor for now. I'll put a pretty penny now that no more than 2 current Big XII teams end up in the SEC, and likely just 1

Long story short -- if the Big XII disbands, it's because the SEC has already gotten what they wanted.


Second, if two ACC teams "magically" apply to join the SEC, then why would the Big 12 be under any pressure whatsoever?

If 2 teams from the ACC join the SEC, which I doubt will happen, it would only be in conjunction with the SEC taking on 2 other teams -- either A&M and Mizzou, or A&M and a third ACC team. If the former, again, katie bar the door, because Texas will start doing a lot more than sabre rattling to stave off full independence. If the latter, which again is doubtful, then the ACC is back to 9 and maybe all is right with the world. So I guess what I am saying is that if 2 ACC teams went to the SEC, it would be coincident with 2 Big XII teams leaving -- that's why it's all linked. If the SEC doesn't get A&M, they aren't doing anything, but getting A&M gives them an incentive to lure in a Va Tech/NC State/Mizzou to even out the numbers.

I've said all along that the most likely scenario is that the SEC picks up A&M and an ACC school. They'll only do it on the promise from ESPN that it will renegotiate the contract, which would pay a Virginia Tech, for instance, a whole lot more than they are getting now. Second most likely scenario is A&M and Mizzou, and third most likely is that A&M comes back home with its tail between its legs. That's the one I want.

Lastly -- anything you hear from conference commissioners and school presidents and ADs should be taken with the same grain of salt that you take from NFL coaches and GMs prior to the NFL draft. No one (except A&M apparently) wants to take the blame for breaking up a conference. The SEC presidents don't meet on a Sunday in August to make a public statement to say that they aren't inviting a school.... yet.... if something isn't going on. They could have just ignored it.

[fan345678]

I think Pitt and Penn State recruit better as members of the ACC. Check where they tend to recruit players. Penn State recruits Virginia heavily. Boston College applications from the
Southeast are way up since joining the ACC. lax devil is on to something here. Maybe plan the next Northern expansion around the schools which work for Penn State as a package deal. They might be Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Viirginia.

I really wish that the ACC would give Pitt some serious consideration. Their academics are solid (AAU member) and their grad programs are very good, especially with the academic environment around them (Carnegie Mellon one block east, Duquesne three blocks west). This goes not only for the law and medical schools, but also for disciplines like philosophy and rhetoric (believe it or not). UPMC is now the largest employer in Western Pennsylvania, and the city itself has done a fantastic job of revamping its economy. Pitt's basketball is very good and its football is serviceable, plus Heinz field is a lot closer to the campus than Dolphins stadium is to Miami (and maybe even Carter-Finley to NCSU). The Peterson Events Center is a top-notch on-campus venue. Pittsburgh people are very provincial, but the upside of that is that they actually care about Pitt a good bit more than most northeastern and midwestern pro cities care about their college teams. That provinciality might also make the university more willing to thumb their noses at the urban non-football Big East schools. Additionally, Pitt folks have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Big TwENlve, as they are not too keen on either PSU or OSU.

Also, while I am very much against adding WVU, their rivalry with Pitt would be nice to have for the sake of the ACC's broader profile, as FSU-Miami is the only "local" rivalry in the ACC outside NC and VA (plus, the VT-WVU rivalry would get kicked back up again). Still, I'm not sure that makes it worth adding WVU.

While it's not that realistic, I'd love to see the ACC get Pitt, Notre Dame, Army, and Navy...and if somebody leaves, perhaps UConn or WVU.

[uh_no]

I really wish that the ACC would give Pitt some serious consideration. Their academics are solid (AAU member) and their grad programs are very good, especially with the academic environment around them (Carnegie Mellon one block east, Duquesne three blocks west). This goes not only for the law and medical schools, but also for disciplines like philosophy and rhetoric (believe it or not). UPMC is now the largest employer in Western Pennsylvania, and the city itself has done a fantastic job of revamping its economy. Pitt's basketball is very good and its football is serviceable, plus Heinz field is a lot closer to the campus than Dolphins stadium is to Miami (and maybe even Carter-Finley to NCSU). The Peterson Events Center is a top-notch on-campus venue. Pittsburgh people are very provincial, but the upside of that is that they actually care about Pitt a good bit more than most northeastern and midwestern pro cities care about their college teams. That provinciality might also make the university more willing to thumb their noses at the urban non-football Big East schools. Additionally, Pitt folks have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Big TwENlve, as they are not too keen on either PSU or OSU.


I think this might be one of the most realistic analyses I've seen in this thread. I think the issue, though, is can the ACC offer pitt enough to coerce them to leave the big east, and at this point, I'm not sure they can. People have thrown around thoughts like the ACC makes a ton of money, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that the ACC is so much more lucrative than the Big East.

That said, the rivalry between pitt and WV is as much a part of their schools as duke/unc is to us, and even if the ACC is more prosperous than the Big East, its hardly likely to be by a huge margin, and would that be enough to cause the two to split?

[laxbluedevil]

When SEC adds Texas A and M, they'll likely add VA Tech, Duke, and UNC. Or VA Tech, Maryland, maybe Florida State or another B12 school. Big 10 will add Maryland and UConn because they're all about increasing their Big Ten Network TV footprint, then maybe add Syracuse and BC, that would give Big 10 the huge DC-NYC-Boston megalopolis in addition to the midwest. What will be left of the ACC if any of that happens? The ACC will be done, over with, Wake Forest and a couple other schools that must join Big East. Is that preferable?

Does anybody like the 12 team ACC more than the 8-9 team ACC, everyone would say no, right? Why, because it created unbalanced unfair divisions which destroyed rivalries, got rid of playing all teams in football and home and home in hoops, and didn't even get the northern TV markets it wanted, not even close. It got Boston, that's it, and barely, because they're on an island by themselves. ACC STILL sucks at football only difference is old ACC teams just get beaten down even more, and is much worse in hoops. My proposal of FSU, GTech, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, and maybe Syracuse and BC, gets ACC back to 8 or 10 schools to play all others in football and home and home in hoops and that means better rivalries, better and best in every sport, and gets every eastern TV market. It gets a conference cable network like a more profitable version of Big Ten Network, and everybody's swimming in money while being able to watch every ACC sport including field hockey and cross country, etc., on the HD big screen in PA, NY, etc.

So what's the downside? There is none, other than southern ACC fans born and raised in NC who want to continue having unfair advantages over every other ACC school and every other ACC fans not in NC, want to continue to be small and insignificant and regional like the Wake Forest of conferences, just so it's centered in and around one state, their state, at the expense of everything else. That's selfish and counterproductive and NOT what the other ACC schools (the majority) want, not what Duke wants. How unfair is the ACC and specifically its MBB tournament? 48 of 58 ACC tournaments have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by NC teams. If anyone thinks that's a coincidence or claims NC teams have just been better, why is that, because all the coaches and recruits knew NC schools had the best chance to win so went there? First 22 ACC tournaments were in NC, with NC schools winning 21 of them. First time they moved it out of NC was to DC, when nearby UVA won their only title ever. The good old days? Yeah, they were pretty good for some, pretty horrible for others, and continue to be horrible. Duke fans can breathe easy because they're practically undefeated in NJ and NYC and have tons of fans all over, but moving it around would be best for all. How can anyone justify not doing that?

Even these old southern ACC fans want 8-10 schools by getting rid of BC and Miami which won't happen, to be even worse and smaller and more regional, insignificant, unstable and unprofitable, how is that preferable? Do we realize we can't go back or freeze time? Why are people bringing up ECU or WVU or Pitt or their favorite community college as if only their personal hometown or alma mater and feelings matter?

As Duke fans we like mens and womens hoops and lacrosse, my eastern conference would be the best in the nation in those by far, and much improved. Duke, UNC, UConn, Syracuse, that's twice as good in MBB while actually subtracting 2 schools to have home and home schedules and playing all teams in football and on TV everywhere. Isn't that a dream come true, incredibly efficient, ideal? Syracuse always plays zone in a huge dome they must fill with fans and outstanding basketball forever so helps Duke and hurts UNC. UConn plays suffocating physical Big East defense and dominates MBB and WBB, this is great prep for NCAA tournaments, right? Lacrosse needs 6 teams for an automatic NCAA bid, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, Syracuse, would be not only the best league, they could be the 6 top programs every year!

If some think SEC could add UNC if they refused to join FSU, GT, Duke, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, Cuse, and BC, those schools would order SEC to ignore them or else lose Florida and Georgia for even thinking about it. And UNC wouldn't join SEC as a newbie outlier in an inferior academic and hoops league and get dominated in football and other sports when they're used to being the center of everything, while giving up all their rivals who would refuse to schedule them. So UNC has no choice, nobody has any choice but to join and stay and embrace being in the best league of all time, forever. Now that's stability and money and power! What's the downside, to anyone? Just name one.

[Verga3]

When SEC adds Texas A and M, they'll likely add VA Tech, Duke, and UNC. Or VA Tech, Maryland, maybe Florida State or another B12 school. Big 10 will add Maryland and UConn because they're all about increasing their Big Ten Network TV footprint, then maybe add Syracuse and BC, that would give Big 10 the huge DC-NYC-Boston megalopolis in addition to the midwest. What will be left of the ACC if any of that happens? The ACC will be done, over with, Wake Forest and a couple other schools that must join Big East. Is that preferable?

Does anybody like the 12 team ACC more than the 8-9 team ACC, everyone would say no, right? Why, because it created unbalanced unfair divisions which destroyed rivalries, got rid of playing all teams in football and home and home in hoops, and didn't even get the northern TV markets it wanted, not even close. It got Boston, that's it, and barely, because they're on an island by themselves. ACC STILL sucks at football only difference is old ACC teams just get beaten down even more, and is much worse in hoops. My proposal of FSU, GTech, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, and maybe Syracuse and BC, gets ACC back to 8 or 10 schools to play all others in football and home and home in hoops and that means better rivalries, better and best in every sport, and gets every eastern TV market. It gets a conference cable network like a more profitable version of Big Ten Network, and everybody's swimming in money while being able to watch every ACC sport including field hockey and cross country, etc., on the HD big screen in PA, NY, etc.

So what's the downside? There is none, other than southern ACC fans born and raised in NC who want to continue having unfair advantages over every other ACC school and every other ACC fans not in NC, want to continue to be small and insignificant and regional like the Wake Forest of conferences, just so it's centered in and around one state, their state, at the expense of everything else. That's selfish and counterproductive and NOT what the other ACC schools (the majority) want, not what Duke wants. How unfair is the ACC and specifically its MBB tournament? 48 of 58 ACC tournaments have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by NC teams. If anyone thinks that's a coincidence or claims NC teams have just been better, why is that, because all the coaches and recruits knew NC schools had the best chance to win so went there? First 22 ACC tournaments were in NC, with NC schools winning 21 of them. First time they moved it out of NC was to DC, when nearby UVA won their only title ever. The good old days? Yeah, they were pretty good for some, pretty horrible for others, and continue to be horrible. Duke fans can breathe easy because they're practically undefeated in NJ and NYC and have tons of fans all over, but moving it around would be best for all. How can anyone justify not doing that?

Even these old southern ACC fans want 8-10 schools by getting rid of BC and Miami which won't happen, to be even worse and smaller and more regional, insignificant, unstable and unprofitable, how is that preferable? Do we realize we can't go back or freeze time? Why are people bringing up ECU or WVU or Pitt or their favorite community college as if only their personal hometown or alma mater and feelings matter?

As Duke fans we like mens and womens hoops and lacrosse, my eastern conference would be the best in the nation in those by far, and much improved. Duke, UNC, UConn, Syracuse, that's twice as good in MBB while actually subtracting 2 schools to have home and home schedules and playing all teams in football and on TV everywhere. Isn't that a dream come true, incredibly efficient, ideal? Syracuse always plays zone in a huge dome they must fill with fans and outstanding basketball forever so helps Duke and hurts UNC. UConn plays suffocating physical Big East defense and dominates MBB and WBB, this is great prep for NCAA tournaments, right? Lacrosse needs 6 teams for an automatic NCAA bid, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, Syracuse, would be not only the best league, they could be the 6 top programs every year!

If some think SEC could add UNC if they refused to join FSU, GT, Duke, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, Cuse, and BC, those schools would order SEC to ignore them or else lose Florida and Georgia for even thinking about it. And UNC wouldn't join SEC as a newbie outlier in an inferior academic and hoops league and get dominated in football and other sports when they're used to being the center of everything, while giving up all their rivals who would refuse to schedule them. So UNC has no choice, nobody has any choice but to join and stay and embrace being in the best league of all time, forever. Now that's stability and money and power! What's the downside, to anyone? Just name one.

Ok...who puts together this deal?

[laxbluedevil]

FSU, GT, Duke, UVA, MD, BC, UConn, Syracuse, get Penn State and UNC to join. PSU or UNC could be 10th, doesn't matter. UNC is easy because they'd have no choice as outlined above, so PSU could be the 10th target. Explain to PSU the advantages after negotiating TV contracts with ESPN, Fox, etc., and set up a conference cable network. Before any of this even happens, have the framework, everything in place, then move, all at once.

[Kedsy]

When SEC adds Texas A and M, they'll likely add VA Tech, Duke, and UNC.

In what alternate universe is this "likely"?

One problem with your superconference is it has approximately a zero (0) percent chance of actually happening. You can argue in favor of your "proposal" all you want, but that doesn't increase the odds.

[sagegrouse]

When SEC adds Texas A and M, they'll likely add VA Tech, Duke, and UNC.

Oh, my! Never in a million years! Neither Duke nor UNC would accept if there were a gun at their head. And, to let you in on a little secret -- no one wants Virginia Tech -- not even the ACC.


Or VA Tech, Maryland, maybe Florida State or another B12 school. never in a thousand years!


Big 10 will add Maryland and UConn because they're all about increasing their Big Ten Network TV footprint, then maybe add Syracuse and BC, that would give Big 10 the huge DC-NYC-Boston megalopolis in addition to the midwest.

You are totally wrong, of course, about the Big Ten's objective. It had a chance to add a school to get to an even number of teams, and it picked -- TA-DA -- Nebraska, one of the smallest TV markets in the US of A. So much for "all about increasing their Big Ten network TV footprint."


What will be left of the ACC if any of that happens? The ACC will be done, over with, Wake Forest and a couple other schools that must join Big East. Is that preferable?

Having created a straw man, you are now going to destroy it. This is illogical in the extreme.

BTW, I contend that the ACC is a solid conference with happy members. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Moreover, no conference will poach members from other conferences, although they will accept applications. The only such applications have been from the Big 12 and the Big East, not the ACC.


My proposal of FSU, GTech, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, and maybe Syracuse and BC, gets ACC back to 8 or 10 schools to play all others in football and home and home in hoops and that means better rivalries, better and best in every sport, and gets every eastern TV market. It gets a conference cable network like a more profitable version of Big Ten Network, and everybody's swimming in money while being able to watch every ACC sport including field hockey and cross country, etc., on the HD big screen in PA, NY, etc.

OK, so you have "your" dream conference, and you have been clutching at straws to show how it might come about. So, UNC tells the NC legislature that it is abandoning NC State and entering a conference with Duke and some other teams. How's that going to go over? Penn State leaves the richest conference in creation to join an experiment that includes no -- zero, zip, nada -- schools beyond Syracuse it ever schedules. Oh, yeah! Explain that to the alums.


So what's the downside? There is none, other than southern ACC fans born and raised in NC who want to continue having unfair advantages over every other ACC school and every other ACC fans not in NC, want to continue to be small and insignificant and regional like the Wake Forest of conferences, just so it's centered in and around one state, their state, at the expense of everything else. That's selfish and counterproductive and NOT what the other ACC schools (the majority) want, not what Duke wants. How unfair is the ACC and specifically its MBB tournament? 48 of 58 ACC tournaments have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by NC teams. If anyone thinks that's a coincidence or claims NC teams have just been better, why is that, because all the coaches and recruits knew NC schools had the best chance to win so went there? First 22 ACC tournaments were in NC, with NC schools winning 21 of them. First time they moved it out of NC was to DC, when nearby UVA won their only title ever. The good old days? Yeah, they were pretty good for some, pretty horrible for others, and continue to be horrible. Duke fans can breathe easy because they're practically undefeated in NJ and NYC and have tons of fans all over, but moving it around would be best for all. How can anyone justify not doing that?

Let's see.... It's bad to have schools in the same state in the same conference because it creates an unfair imbalance of influence. Therefore, these schools decide, "Gee, this is unfair to all of humankind. We should split up for the good of the universe." Sounds like an interesting model of university behavior. Do you have some examples where this has occurred?


Even these old southern ACC fans want 8-10 schools by getting rid of BC and Miami which won't happen, to be even worse and smaller and more regional, insignificant, unstable and unprofitable, how is that preferable? Do we realize we can't go back or freeze time? Why are people bringing up ECU or WVU or Pitt or their favorite community college as if only their personal hometown or alma mater and feelings matter?

Lets see.... So if southern ACC fans get what they want, they would be worse off because they are too stupid to know what is good for them. But knowing how stupid they are themselves, they will agree to this proposal because LaxBlueDevil has shown them the way.

Did I get that right?

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

My proposal of FSU, GTech, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, PSU, UConn, and maybe Syracuse and BC...

What's the downside, to anyone? Just name one.

Well, since you asked, the last ACC expansion was made specifically to facilitate a league football championship game, which brings in a lot of $$$ to the conference and requires 12 teams. You may not like that reasoning, but the lack of a football championship is certainly a downside to your plan.

Looking at the components of your supposed superleague, basically, you want to dump NC State, Wake, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Miami for Penn State, UConn, and Syracuse. Your league would seem to be less powerful from a football perspective, and slightly more powerful from a basketball perspective. There would also seem to be some advantages for lacrosse.

From a non-revenue sport perspective, you've gotten rid of several local and local-ish games and replaced them with long distance games, which I think would be another downside to your proposal. True, you're getting rid of Miami and we already have BC, but it would still appear to significantly increase travel costs in sports that don't have the budget for such travel.

It seems to me the primary things your proposal would accomplish would be to shrink the league from 12 teams to 10 and to break up the "Big Four." Since the ACC expanded specifically to get 12 teams for the football playoff, and since the Big Four has traditional rivalries going back more than 50 years, I'm not sure either of those accomplishments would be laudable goals.

Besides, even if we accept that subtracting three original ACC members and adding Penn State, UConn, and Syracuse would be a plus, I doubt anybody but you would describe such a conference as the "best league of all time."

Just my opinion, of course.

[fan345678]

Oh, my! Never in a million years! Neither Duke nor UNC would accept if there were a gun at their head. And, to let you in on a little secret -- no one wants Virginia Tech -- not even the ACC.

While you're right about Duke and UNC, your VT "secret" is indeed very little. For the SEC, VT would be a pretty attractive option, since it brings in a new state (plus DC, VT's biggest alumni base) and its location on the I-81 corridor makes it fairly accessible to other SEC schools (it's a pretty spread out conference). VT fans travel and the university fits with the SEC's state U/land grant profile. They'd also be in the top half or even top third of the SEC academically.

Also, it would be tough to make the case that VT hasn't been the gem of ACC expansion (if there has been such a thing). VT's football success often makes the "new TV market" argument moot, since they frequently get one of the ACC's national broadcast slots. They've got good graduation rates and have recently been finishing in the middle of the ACC in Director's Cup rankings (it took them a few years to get olympic sports up to ACC standards). Academically, they are certainly not at the bottom of the conference. VT shares a vet school with Maryland and their BME (if I'm remembering correctly) program with Wake. They also just added a school of osteopathic medicine and of course have excellent architecture and engineering programs. Miami has added a football scandal and a good baseball team, and BC has added a feel-good linebacker and a huge TV market that doesn't watch college sports. VT has added the largest university in Virginia and a devoted alumni base spread throughout the mid-Atlantic.

[Kedsy]

How unfair is the ACC and specifically its MBB tournament? 48 of 58 ACC tournaments have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by NC teams. If anyone thinks that's a coincidence or claims NC teams have just been better, why is that, because all the coaches and recruits knew NC schools had the best chance to win so went there? First 22 ACC tournaments were in NC, with NC schools winning 21 of them. First time they moved it out of NC was to DC, when nearby UVA won their only title ever. The good old days? Yeah, they were pretty good for some, pretty horrible for others, and continue to be horrible. Duke fans can breathe easy because they're practically undefeated in NJ and NYC and have tons of fans all over, but moving it around would be best for all. How can anyone justify not doing that?

One last thing: EVERY Big East tournament ever held has been in Madison Square Garden. Is that an unfair advantage for St. Johns (or Rutgers or UConn or Syracuse)? Does anybody care? Does anybody think it would be best to "move it around"?

If the ACC is forced to change its configuration, I doubt the location of the basketball tournament would be very high on the list of considerations.

[laxbluedevil]

If nobody wants VT, SEC adds FSU or Clemson instead? People have said UF would block FSU, UGA and SC would block GT and Clemson, so that leaves Duke, UNC, VT, UVA, MD, in new TV markets. If Duke and UNC said no, they'd go with VT, UVA, or MD, or all 3. Where would the ACC be without ANY of those teams, especially in football where it's already weak just like hoops?

Big 10 would add MD and UConn to get DC, Baltimore, and NYC, they already have Philly and Pittsburgh. They could also add Syracuse and BC to lock down DC to Maine to midwest. B10/11 adding Nebraska was a big mistake, they already had tons of great football programs and NU sucks at every other sport with no TV market or academics. They needed a boost in hoops and with the Big Ten Network priority 1 was getting DC, Baltimore, NY, CT, northeast, etc., to almost double their potential viewers and greatly increase revenue per school, but they screwed up badly, don't expect it to happen again. Who are they going to add, Montana or Nebraska Tech? Everyone in the B10 wants MD first. Nebraska leaving was also a mistake in many ways, they gave up incredible tradition with B12 schools to sell out and be the redheaded outlier, this won't help NU's football program, hasn't helped PSU's.

Everyone already says the ACC sucks now and can only get worse or die, see above. Adding WVU or Pitt or ECU isn't going to change that. Adding anyone without dropping schools won't help and I don't think ACC allows schools to be dropped, so the only way is for the best schools to leave and form the best conference. That's exactly what happened to the Southern Conference when the ACC was formed.

I've explained in detail why PSU would join its historic rivals MD, Syracuse, Conn, BC, in the eastern league. I think PSU played just 1 or 2 of those teams more than every Big 10 school combined at the time they joined in 1993. That tells you everything you need to know that PSU is an eastern school with eastern traditions and rivals. And just look at a map, their only B10/11/12 neighbor OSU doesn't care about them, and they're the outlier screwed more than any other in travel. They'd be right in the middle of a new eastern league, better travel, better academics, better hoops, and better competitive level for football. Hell, we can tailor make football based on what PSU wants, Clemson or VT or Miami switched with BC or Syracuse, easy, but they wouldn't want that. B10/11/12 has been horrible for PSU football, they were good in 94 right after they joined and sucked since, PSU hoops is a nightmare, this is what happens when they abandon their historic rivals and recruiting territory to fly to Iowa, etc. TV money, splitting half the US population and media 8-10 ways, or splitting empty cornfields and dying abandoned rust belt ruins 12-16 ways, not a tough choice.

I didn't say UNC, NC State, and Wake, would voluntarily break up for the sake of the rest of the ACC. I said FSU, GT, Duke, UVA, MD, BC, UConn, Syracuse, PSU, could force UNC to join or be replaced with Clemson or Miami or NC State. If NC State Legislature's option is to have UNC never play any of its historic rivals who would refuse to schedule them, and have UNC join Big East going to St Johns and Seton Hall's backyard every year for the Big East tournament where they'll be treated like the redheaded stepchild outlier by worse academic peers, or be in the best conference ever, especially in hoops, well then it's really up to them isn't it? What would you choose if in their shoes? Or maybe not, UNC can dare them to cut off its funding, we'll see how the voters feel if they do, won't happen and we all know it. If UNC goes Big East, we'll see how they feel a few years into it when they barely have sports programs.

Are you saying people in the south or anywhere don't like to be talked down to or that this is like discussing politics or religion, logic doesn't enter into it and nobody changes their mind ever, even if they think communist North Korea has the best govt ever or Wake Forest or ECU is the most valuable sports program in USA? I suppose that could be correct, many people are fearful of change or have selfish motivations, don't like to admit they're wrong, react emotionally instead of logically. But this is about discussing what's best, and what each of these 10 schools should want. We're here to have a rational discussion, right?

[laxbluedevil]

ACC football championship game has been an embarassment and failure nobody attends or watches, and it takes away playing all teams every year which is the only way to determine a true champ as Wake Forest can tell you, kills home and home in hoops and hurts all sports schedules. This is basically about dropping NC State and Wake Forest, the rest of the league wouldn't lose anything but would gain a lot of money per school and scheduling flexibility and be better in sports. Penn State football hasn't competed well in the B10/11/12 so would want easier conf schedules, and so does all the rest of FSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, BC, UConn, Syracuse, so that's 10 for 10. That way, FSU can still play UF or Miami, PSU can play Ohio State or Pitt or WVU, and every ACC team can schedule good opponents and still compete for bowls or even national titles. Remember, it's not about how many good teams are in a 12 team league since teams won't play them all, it's only about your schedule and how it rates with computers and pollsters. Goal is to be the best in all sports to prep for NCAA tournaments, except football where goal is to be easily good enough for BCS bid but not much better. This gives everyone flexibility, the current ACC 12 is an unfair mess, but Duke or UNC could schedule cupcakes, others could have the toughest schedules in the nation. Sure, BC or Syracuse football could be replaced by Miami or Clemson, but none of the 10 would actually want that. New 10 team hoops would be twice as good with Duke, UNC, Syracuse, UConn, with 2 less teams and much better scheduling in all sports, lacrosse and other sports better.

Travel is better BC to FSU instead of BC to Miami. Other than hoops, schools play each other once for most sports, so Duke, UNC, UVA, could still play NC State, Wake, nonconference every year, so no effect in nonrevenue travel. Remember PSU, BC, Syracuse, UConn, would all be close to each other and have all the top northeast programs, right now, BC is a joke in ACC. Obviously the ACC calculated travel costs to BC and determined their miniscule TV coverage in Boston more than paid for all travel expenses, so adding PSU, Cuse, and UConn, together is a no brainer compared to adding BC alone.

ACC wanted 12 but made a mistake since everyone prefers the 8 or 9 ACC to 12. All the articles about the title game are about how it's a disappointing embarassment that nobody wants to attend or watch and that the ACC had not foreseen that, or that the league would be just as bad in football and much worse in hoops, with unbalanced unfair divisions, and ruined schedules in football, hoops, and all sports. UNC may not want to break up the "big" 4 for selfish unfair reasons, but the non-NC schools do, and majority can do whatever they want. Duke should support them, UNC can't stop them, and nobody really has to care about what NC State or Wake Forest wants in future conference alignments.

New conference could be called Atlantic Conference or Atlantic League or Eastern League, would be best in revenue per school dominating half the US population with just 10 or even 8 schools, mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, field hockey, football if they chose to be though they would not for a number of reasons including avoiding potential for scandal and knocking themselves out of national titles or scheduling flexibility, academics among BCS conferences, media exposure, etc. Even things like UConn being next to ESPN, sports journalists from Syracuse, MD, UNC, Duke, dominating NYC, DC, etc., would ensure this would be a league of its own at the top of any college sports discussions.

[whereinthehellami]

While you're right about Duke and UNC, your VT "secret" is indeed very little. For the SEC, VT would be a pretty attractive option, since it brings in a new state (plus DC, VT's biggest alumni base) and its location on the I-81 corridor makes it fairly accessible to other SEC schools (it's a pretty spread out conference). VT fans travel and the university fits with the SEC's state U/land grant profile. They'd also be in the top half or even top third of the SEC academically.

Also, it would be tough to make the case that VT hasn't been the gem of ACC expansion (if there has been such a thing). VT's football success often makes the "new TV market" argument moot, since they frequently get one of the ACC's national broadcast slots. They've got good graduation rates and have recently been finishing in the middle of the ACC in Director's Cup rankings (it took them a few years to get olympic sports up to ACC standards). Academically, they are certainly not at the bottom of the conference. VT shares a vet school with Maryland and their BME (if I'm remembering correctly) program with Wake. They also just added a school of osteopathic medicine and of course have excellent architecture and engineering programs. Miami has added a football scandal and a good baseball team, and BC has added a feel-good linebacker and a huge TV market that doesn't watch college sports. VT has added the largest university in Virginia and a devoted alumni base spread throughout the mid-Atlantic.

Good post fan345678. Don't worry about Sage and VT, he has issues with the Hokies and never hesitates to spread the negativity. I think he got some frenchie in him.

[Acymetric]

Where did this idea that nobody wants Virginia Tech come from? Perennially a top-25 football team, good though snakebitten basketball (all Seth Greenberg/Deron Washington complaints aside), good school, passionate fan base that travels well. Are people just inserting their own anti-VT sentiments or do you actually think nobody wants them?

[Fletch]

laxbluedevil's contributions to this thread are pure comedy. The ACC has been one of the most stable conferences throughout the last 50 years, yet he proposes that the conference contract by breaking up the Big 4?

I see the ACC staying low for the immediate future, but if it were forced to add a school(s) it would most likely look North and raid the Big East again. No way any NC school leaves the conference.

[sagegrouse]

Good post fan345678. Don't worry about Sage and VT, he has issues with the Hokies and never hesitates to spread the negativity. I think he got some frenchie in him.


Where did this idea that nobody wants Virginia Tech come from? Perennially a top-25 football team, good though snakebitten basketball (all Seth Greenberg/Deron Washington complaints aside), good school, passionate fan base that travels well. Are people just inserting their own anti-VT sentiments or do you actually think nobody wants them?

I may need to go to re-education camp re my attitudes towards Va Tech, but here's the basis of my saying that they were unwanted in the ACC.

In 2003, when the ACC voted to expand by adding BC and Miami, there was a question about the third school. Syracuse would have been easily admitted over Virginia Tech in an up-and-down vote. The problem was that Duke and UNC were opposed to expansion, although both admitted that if expansion HAD to happen, Syracuse was their choice. The nine-team ACC needed seven votes (75%) for expansion. With Duke and UNC unavailable, it depended on getting Virginia's vote. Virginia, which viscerally despised Virginia Tech more than any other ACC school, was, nevertheless, forced to vote only for expansion that included Virginia Tech. This was the result of pressure from Governor Mark Warner's office as well as, I suspect, the legislature.

The interesting twist of events was the votes of Nan Keohane of Duke and James Moeser of UNC. In their case, stupidity was disguised as principle. They failed to distinguish between the worst outcome (Va Tech) and the second-best outcome (Syracuse) by voting against any expansion scenario in a futile and misguided effort to get their best outcome (no expansion). Nobel laureate John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") received his award by reasoning out this and many more complex situations in a game theory context. I guess they didn't read the book (or see the movie).

Thus, Virginia Tech was reluctantly admitted to the ACC. This is the basis of my saying that "no one wants Virginia Tech."

Is Virginia Tech a worthy member of the ACC? Yes, although I hate Frank Beamer for the felonious assaults launched on Thad Lewis, when he was Duke's only offensive weapon. In basketball, Seth Greenberg brings a certain amusement value, as he manages to elude the NCAA tournament every single year.

Would Virginia Tech be more attractive to the SEC today than to the ACC in 2003? Yes, probably, in that it would add a new state to the SEC and not duplicate existing markets. Would it be more attractive than West Virginia, Mizzou, or even Louisville? I don't think so -- Blacksburg is the end of the world.

Would Virginia Tech apply for membership in the SEC, given the larger material rewards? I am not so sure. Virginia Tech had lusted after the ACC ever since its founding in 1953, until it was admitted 50 years later. I am not so sure it would leave under any circumstances. And then there is the political side of the coin in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Anyway, that's my story, and I am sticking to it.

sagegrouse

[Mal]

I've explained in detail why PSU would join its historic rivals MD, Syracuse, Conn, BC, in the eastern league.

There's a difference between explaining in detail and making a credible case. I and others have provided plenty of reasons why Penn State's not going anywhere and you just keep flying with blinders on. Address some of our points with something other than enthusiasm, and maybe we'll listen.


I think PSU played just 1 or 2 of those teams more than every Big 10 school combined at the time they joined in 1993. That tells you everything you need to know that PSU is an eastern school with eastern traditions and rivals. I'm not even sure what that first sentence means. Regardless, PSU's been competing against Big Ten schools annually for close to two decades now. Traditions and rivalries change over time with exposure. I'd venture that recent alums of Penn State couldn't care less about the school's dead rivalries with UConn and Syracuse from decades ago. For anyone under 25, PSU has existed only within the Big Ten, since they could form memories. As a large state school with a huge football stadium and good to very good academics, it's in many ways a perfect fit in the Big Ten, despite its location further east than any other school there. You've provided no reasoning whatsoever to explain why central Pennsylvania has any more of a cultural mesh with North Carolina, Florida or Georgia than it does with Wisconsin and Illinois. Probably because it doesn't.


And just look at a map, their only B10/11/12 neighbor OSU doesn't care about them, and they're the outlier screwed more than any other in travel. They'd be right in the middle of a new eastern league, better travel, better academics, better hoops, and better competitive level for football.

As noted in a previous post, this is just a red herring. Travel is not that bad for PSU right now. It would not improve by adding Boston, Tallahassee and Atlanta. Yes, DC and North Carolina and upstate NY are fairly close to College Station. So are Columbus, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Lafayette and Bloomington. Your eastern conference covers basically the entire eastern seaboard, so you're not cutting everyone's travel time. Tallahassee to Boston is no shorter a commute than central PA to Lincoln.

No conference that includes UConn, Maryland and Florida State would be in much position to hosannah its academics over the Big Ten, sorry to say. Duke and UNC and BC are nice, but so are Northwestern and Michigan and Wisconsin. In fact, they're quite comparable, and the bottom of the Big Ten doesn't fall off nearly so much as most conferences academically.


B10/11/12 has been horrible for PSU football, they were good in 94 right after they joined and sucked since, PSU hoops is a nightmare, this is what happens when they abandon their historic rivals and recruiting territory to fly to Iowa, etc.

Apparently you're not paying attention. From 2005 through 2009, Penn State went 51-13 in football, tied for the conference title twice and played in two BCS bowl games. Whatever that is, "horrible" is not the correct description.


TV money, splitting half the US population and media 8-10 ways, or splitting empty cornfields and dying abandoned rust belt ruins 12-16 ways, not a tough choice.

I don't know if this is supposed to be funny or just a straight up insult of the midwest, but I certainly took it as the latter. Please provide evidence that the northeast corridor supplies a montizeable television market for college football of any sort. Or basketball, for that matter. Otherwise, your citation of population statistics is meaningless. Are you aware of what a money mill the Big Ten network has turned into for its members? You've provided nothing in the way of credible projection of how your proposed new conference makes any more money for PSU or anyone else than the stable Big Ten. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on how making a commitment to D-1 hockey, the third largest revenue sport in collegiate athletics, would lead Penn State to abandon the Big Ten, which this year promised to get its members playing hockey against each other and probably shredding the WCHA and CCHA in the process. Especially when Hockey East would skip right over Pennsylvania into Michigan for leftovers if it decided to expand.

[fan345678]

Would Virginia Tech apply for membership in the SEC, given the larger material rewards? I am not so sure. Virginia Tech had lusted after the ACC ever since its founding in 1953, until it was admitted 50 years later. I am not so sure it would leave under any circumstances. And then there is the political side of the coin in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I do agree with this. I'd be very surprised if VT left, and I'm sure that neither the AD (Jim Weaver) nor Beamer want to be in the SEC.

As for the Thad Lewis thing, that one VT player did put an egregious late hit on Lewis. I just can't imagine what would possess a defensive player to hit a quarterback, let alone a QB who is the team's best offensive player and is a freshman playing on the road. What kind of strategy is that? Sack the quarterback? Intimidate a freshman? Disrupt the other team's offensive rhythm? Felonious! Felonious, I say!

Sorry...I just feel like one of the big steps to Duke developing a better football program is our fan base as a whole developing a tougher attitude!

[Duvall]

As for the Thad Lewis thing, that one VT player did put an egregious late hit on Lewis. I just can't imagine what would possess a defensive player to hit a quarterback, let alone a QB who is the team's best offensive player and is a freshman playing on the road. What kind of strategy is that? Sack the quarterback? Intimidate a freshman? Disrupt the other team's offensive rhythm? Felonious! Felonious, I say!

And here we see the real mystery of the Miami scandal - why did Nevin Shaprio have to pay Hurricanes players to try to injure their opponents when Frank Beamer and Seth Greenberg are able to get Virginia Tech players to do it for free?

[WSW77]

I want more lacrosse. 'Nuff said.

[sporthenry]

Well the ACC doesn't really care at the moment if nobody likes the ACC championship game b/c they are getting $40 million from ABC for it. While I believe that contact is up at the end of the year so I guess the deal they get after this year will go a long way to determine how well the championship game has been. But make no mistake, the ACC championship game is very important b/c it is like a mini BCS game and the reason there is still a BCS is b/c their Bowl games make lucrative amounts of money.

As mentioned, Penn State has a lot more in common with the Big Ten and the Big Ten wanted Nebraska so you may not like it but that is the type of school they want and you can't just say it was wrong b/c you didn't like it. Schools with large enrollments which usually segue into more research which provides the Big Ten with a lot of academic prowess.

Nobody but you and perhaps some purists want an 8-9 team league and if it comes to that, the ACC probably lost and football in the ACC would be pretty dead. And if the SEC of Big Ten go to 16, it would pretty much require everyone else to do the same and then you'd have 4-16 team conferences with 4 winners and the semi-finals set. And nobody would want to join an 8-9 team league with rampant speculation about 16 team leagues b/c for one that conference you mention isn't even a dominant football one. And secondly, if it becomes 4-16 team leagues, the money from those conferences would likely be more lucrative and you'd also get Texas and ND to settle somewhere.

[sagegrouse]

As for the Thad Lewis thing, that one VT player did put an egregious late hit on Lewis. I just can't imagine what would possess a defensive player to hit a quarterback, let alone a QB who is the team's best offensive player and is a freshman playing on the road. What kind of strategy is that? Sack the quarterback? Intimidate a freshman? Disrupt the other team's offensive rhythm? Felonious! Felonious, I say!



My memory is probably faulty, but here it is: VT had no offense when it played Duke at Lane Stadium in November 2008, due to the loss of its only experienced QB, Sean Glennon. Duke had only Lewis and no effective backup QB to propel its strong passing attack. The Devils, of course, had no running game. VT incurred multiple (four?) roughing the passer penalties before Lewis was finally KOed via a concussion. The Hokies prevailed 14-3, with the margin padded by a late return of an interception -- natch -- for a TD. If Lewis plays the whole game, the Devils win. I believe Beamer intentionally incurred multiple penalties to injure Lewis.

If I am wrong, I apologize. But if I am right about the penalties and the concussion, that kind of football has no place in college or the NFL.

sagegrouse
'And IMHO, where the H is usually silent, the NFL wouldn't stand for it.'

[ForkFondler]

In order to avoid making a ridiculously long post, I will start with three interrelated theses:

1) Division 1A football needs a playoff. Most fans want this and the TV revenue would be phenomenal. An 8 team championship where the first round is composed of conference championships could happen easily. 64 teams in 4 conferences = instant playoff format.

2) 1AA is OK. With more TV revenue, the rich will continue to get richer. Many of the schools in 1A really can’t compete. Perhaps it would be better to pare 1A membership to something like 64 teams in one fell swoop. Since many other teams would be reclassified at the same time, the stigma of dropping down would be lessened. With better teams, 1AA would instantly become more competitive 1AA teams could still go bowling, and some of the better 1AA conferences could still get some ESPNU money. The 1AA championship would also become more marketable.

3) The ACC could expand to sixteen teams with 1A and 1AA divisions for football and geographical divisions for all other sports. For the 1A championship, the ACC 1A division would hold a spot opposite a slot held for 1A independents. Promotion and relegation for 1A/1AA membership would be very cool.

I'll leave wild speculation about who goes where for later posts.

[uh_no]

Promotion and relegation for 1A/1AA membership would be very cool.


With how college athletics works, this is hardly fair. Teams can be terrible one year and terrific the next. Imagine a system like this for college ball. A team like uconn (who missed the tournament 2 years ago) would have been "relegated" and then they win the national title the next. Its silly to deny a team a chance at the title simply because they weren't good the year before. With players only in college for 2-3 years, and some with redshirts, its quite easy to have huge swings in performance from year to year. Conversely, great teams often have a ton of people who leave the next year. Take Davidson, with Curry, they likely would have been "promoted" but then he leaves and they stink. If you were to implement a system like this, you coudln't do it FIFA style, but would have to base it off of something like the previous 5 years worth of performance. Even so, it will never happen because the "haves" don't want to chance losing out on the tv revenue....and their vote is all that matters anyway

[Bob Green]

My memory is probably faulty,...

Thad Lewis did not play in the 14-3 loss to Virginia Tech. He was hurt the previous week in the game against Clemson.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1625593

https://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/353316.pdf?ATCLID=3621480&SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200

[CameronBornAndBred]

Thad Lewis did not play in the 14-3 loss to Virginia Tech. He was hurt the previous week in the game against Clemson.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1625593

https://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/353316.pdf?ATCLID=3621480&SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200
My memory is as good as Sage's, I thought Thad played and got beat up in that game too. I do know that contest was the source of Loran's signature. (For those that don't know, do a search..it's too funny.)

Upon further review!!! (as the refs say, those bastards) It was VT who leveled Thad, but we are thinking about his freshmen year (and third game).

Sophomore QB Marcus Jones (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=157427) entered the game on Duke’s second offensive snap to replace freshman Thaddeus Lewis (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=319269), who was banged up on the first play ... Lewis returned to the lineup later in the drive, but departed the contest for a second time following an illegal hit to the head by Virginia Tech’s Aaron Rouse midway through the second quarter.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=609407

[hughgs]

In order to avoid making a ridiculously long post, I will start with three interrelated theses:

2) 1AA is OK. With more TV revenue, the rich will continue to get richer. Many of the schools in 1A really can’t compete. Perhaps it would be better to pare 1A membership to something like 64 teams in one fell swoop. Since many other teams would be reclassified at the same time, the stigma of dropping down would be lessened. With better teams, 1AA would instantly become more competitive 1AA teams could still go bowling, and some of the better 1AA conferences could still get some ESPNU money. The 1AA championship would also become more marketable.



If IAA foootball is OK why does it need to be more competitive? How is it not competitive now that it needs to be competitive in the future? And why, oh why, would IAA need a bowl system? As you pointed out everyone wants IA to have a playoff system, which IAA football has, yet you seem to be advocating for a bowl system in IAA.

[J.Blink]

Nobody but you and perhaps some purists want an 8-9 team league and if it comes to that, the ACC probably lost and football in the ACC would be pretty dead. And if the SEC of Big Ten go to 16, it would pretty much require everyone else to do the same and then you'd have 4-16 team conferences with 4 winners and the semi-finals set. And nobody would want to join an 8-9 team league with rampant speculation about 16 team leagues b/c for one that conference you mention isn't even a dominant football one. And secondly, if it becomes 4-16 team leagues, the money from those conferences would likely be more lucrative and you'd also get Texas and ND to settle somewhere.

Is it really true that only "purists" want an 8-9 team league? I thought that was a pretty popular feeling. At least amongst Duke, UNC, and State fans (the fans I see the most of)...

I also don't fully understand why the SEC going to 16 teams would "pretty much require" everybody else to join a superleague. It seems a common assumption, but why exactly is that?

[A-Tex Devil]

Is it really true that only "purists" want an 8-9 team league? I thought that was a pretty popular feeling. At least amongst Duke, UNC, and State fans (the fans I see the most of)...

I also don't fully understand why the SEC going to 16 teams would "pretty much require" everybody else to join a superleague. It seems a common assumption, but why exactly is that?

I think it's more than an assumption, but it's certainly just conjecture/theory.

The thought is that if the SEC goes to 16, then the Big XII awould collapse . Someone is going to pick up Texas, OU and KU, and those someones may have to pick up Tech, OkSt. and KSU in the process.

It's gotten quiet, even in College Station. Those "in the know" in college station said Aggies to SEC would be wrapped up in 3 weeks. It's been a week now, so I guess we are just waiting until the season starts.

[hq2]

My $.02

1. VT stays. They've been a fine addition both geographically, academically, and athletically. Should have been brought
in long ago, major TV markets notwithstanding.

2. If FSU and/or Miami want to leave, I don't think they would be all that missed. They should be in the SEC, and since Miami is about to get clobbered one way or another with sanctions, their football program may take years to recover. FSU was strictly brought in to bolster the conferences' football standing, but I don't think anyone else really cares about them besides that; they aren't anyone's natural rivals (especially if Miami leaves) and they're too far away.

3. Penn State won't leave the Big 10; they're natural football rivals with OSU and Michigan.

4. South Carolina ought to come back. They're natural rivals with Clemson, and only left because Frank McGuire
got mad because they couldn't win the ACC tournament. They never should have left.

[fan345678]

Thad Lewis did not play in the 14-3 loss to Virginia Tech. He was hurt the previous week in the game against Clemson.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1625593

https://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/353316.pdf?ATCLID=3621480&SPSID=22666&SPID=1843&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200

The game in which Thad was hit helmet-to-helmet by Rouse was in 2006, which VT won 36-0. Lewis was sacked three times on the first Duke drive, which also included a roughing the passer penalty. There was another roughing the passer on Duke's second drive (the head-to-head hit) and another sack on Duke's third drive. On Duke's fifth drive, Lewis was sacked on the first play and there was a roughing the passer on the second play. Marcus Jones then came in at QB and was sacked on that drive. Jones was also sacked three times in the third quarter. So, that's nine sacks-- five on Lewis and four on Jones-- and three roughing the passer penalties. There were also a number of short runs by both Lewis and Jones, most of which were probably due to pressure. (see play-by-play here: http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=262590259&period=0)

So, there was clearly an agenda to pressure the quarterback and hit him as much as possible. That's a typical defensive game plan against a passing team with a bad OL and a freshman QB, and a defensive coach would probably trade nine sacks, three fumbles, and an interception for three roughing penalties. If you're trying to pressure the quarterback on every snap, then you're going to get there late a few times. Rouse's particular hit was atrocious and would have merited a big fine in the NFL, but to suggest that the VT coaches had an agenda to injure Lewis is a bit overboard. VT's game plan was no different from that of every team that played Duke that year, but VT did have the #1 total defense in the country, so they were able to execute that plan more effectively. To me, the reaction of many fans toward VT at the time seemed way too dramatic and overprotective...like Thad Lewis was our little baby and VT were a bunch of mean bullies for trying to tackle him.

So to bring this back on topic, that mentality is why Duke will never be in the SEC (though I am thankful for that).

[ForkFondler]

With how college athletics works, this is hardly fair. Teams can be terrible one year and terrific the next. Imagine a system like this for college ball. A team like uconn (who missed the tournament 2 years ago) would have been "relegated" and then they win the national title the next. Its silly to deny a team a chance at the title simply because they weren't good the year before. With players only in college for 2-3 years, and some with redshirts, its quite easy to have huge swings in performance from year to year. Conversely, great teams often have a ton of people who leave the next year. Take Davidson, with Curry, they likely would have been "promoted" but then he leaves and they stink. If you were to implement a system like this, you coudln't do it FIFA style, but would have to base it off of something like the previous 5 years worth of performance. Even so, it will never happen because the "haves" don't want to chance losing out on the tv revenue....and their vote is all that matters anyway

That suggestion only pertains to football. Teams do not go from bottom feeder (out of the top 50) to national contender (top ten) in one year.

[ForkFondler]

If IAA foootball is OK why does it need to be more competitive? How is it not competitive now that it needs to be competitive in the future? And why, oh why, would IAA need a bowl system? As you pointed out everyone wants IA to have a playoff system, which IAA football has, yet you seem to be advocating for a bowl system in IAA.

1AA would be more OK if it were more competitive -- that's the point.

Bowls are quite the opposite of a system -- so no reason why a bowl couldn't match up a 1A team vs a 1AA team -- so long as niether was involved in their own respective championships. So, maybe Duke could go to another Rose bowl even if they were 1AA.

[A-Tex Devil]

1AA would be more OK if it were more competitive -- that's the point.

Bowls are quite the opposite of a system -- so no reason why a bowl couldn't match up a 1A team vs a 1AA team -- so long as niether was involved in their own respective championships. So, maybe Duke could go to another Rose bowl even if they were 1AA.

Pat Forde wrote a column with a "relegation" concept akin to this 2 or 3 years ago. Let me see if I can dig it up........ there (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4369091&sportCat=ncf).

It certainly is a worthy effort of creative writing. I actually thought it was a great concept, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't work in practice.

[uh_no]

4. South Carolina ought to come back. They're natural rivals with Clemson, and only left because Frank McGuire
got mad because they couldn't win the ACC tournament. They never should have left.

I think the massive amounts of cash they end up with from the SEC more than makes up for the loss of the clemson rivalry (I'm not old enough to know whether it actually ever existed)

[sporthenry]

Is it really true that only "purists" want an 8-9 team league? I thought that was a pretty popular feeling. At least amongst Duke, UNC, and State fans (the fans I see the most of)...

I also don't fully understand why the SEC going to 16 teams would "pretty much require" everybody else to join a superleague. It seems a common assumption, but why exactly is that?

Well I would consider most of those fans the purists b/c they were 3 of the founding members. I guess purists isn't the best way to put it but I will say that going to 8-9 teams wouldn't be intelligent and won't happen from the ACC perspective. Again, a conference championship game is a cash cow hence why the Big 10 went to 12. I found that the Championship game with a few other games get them $40 million then Forbes also ran a list that under new contract ACC is going up from $66.9 million a year to average of $155 million starting this year. So financially, they have to keep 12. And some can say screw the finances but this is a lot of money and I think its pretty fair to say that some non-revenue sports would be cut if not for this money.

And the natural progression is that if the SEC or Big Ten go to 16, it would leave a bunch of teams kinda without a conference and the super conference making a lot of money. If you have a Big East of football which would be like the SEC if they added teams like A&M or OU or the Big Ten if they get ND, WVU, Pitt, etc the TV deals would be even more lucrative b/c you could probably guarantee 2 top 25 match ups a week. And then you have the scraps from the Big East or Big 12 who apart from Texas would need a place to go. So then they'd be looking to join a conference like the Pac 12 takes the Big 12 teams. So you'd have conferences like the ACC and Pac 12 making even less compared to the SEC then they already are and you'd have a bunch of good programs asking them for admission so it would be mutually beneficial. Then you'd have these 16 team super conferences starting to materialize at which case Texas and ND would have to decide to join or go independent but I think they would join b/c as someone stated these 16 team conferences would have 8 team divisions, championship games would be national quarterfinals and that would give you a final 4. And with every other top program involved, I think it would force Texas and ND to join or else they wouldn't be invited at the end. This would obviously screw over the smaller programs like a Utah or perhaps a Boise if they don't get an invite but I don't think these big conferences would care much.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/ (And here is the link regarding ACC financials the only problem I have with the article is that the ACC is apparently more than doubling their TV deal so you have another $85 million coming into the conference which will make it a whole lot easier for the rest of the ACC to balance their books).

[Duvall]

I think the massive amounts of cash they end up with from the SEC more than makes up for the loss of the clemson rivalry (I'm not old enough to know whether it actually ever existed)

Loss? It's still there.

[sagegrouse]

Well I would consider most of those fans the purists b/c they were 3 of the founding members. I guess purists isn't the best way to put it but I will say that going to 8-9 teams wouldn't be intelligent and won't happen from the ACC perspective.

I like the term "Purists." I would broaden the definition to include those schools and influential individuals thereabouts that value conferences as a way of organizing competition and creating and preserving rivalries. My own view is that the ACC is filled with purists: everyone seems to like the conference, either because of tradition (the original seven), gratitude (VT and Miami), or practicalities (GT, BC and FSU). and, maybe I'm wrong.... We'll see over the next few years.

But there are other actors:

"Malcontents," who think they have been dealt a bad hand and are interested in making conference changes. The poster boy here is Texas A&M, although I expect the Big East would have more defections if there were any good alternatives. And Mizzou, Colorado and Nebraska seemed eager to leave the Big 12 (and the latter two have). These are the change agents, provoking instability among the conferences.

"God-Squadders", who believe they can create any environment they want. Texas and its running mate Oklahoma fall here, as does Notre Dame. (Hey, God-Squadder for a team with a Touchdown Jesus, is appropriate, isn't it?) Whether or not these schools are as powerful as they think they are (How could they be?), if they decide to apply to virtually conference, it would shift the power structure of college athletics.

Much of the recent discussion has come from another group, mostly in the media and on the Web sites -- the "Theorists." These are folks that have had the blinding insight that four 16-team super conferences are the inevitable shape of the college sports world because of the media landscape and, I suppose, the negotiating process around network and cable rights. Now why this maximizes revenue per team is unclear to me (and I really have been an economist for many decades). It's not just because there are four networks in play; NBC seems content with just Notre Dame. But, anyway, there you have it.

Much of the discussion here and in the other thread (A-Tex Devil's) have had the Purists and the Theorists in opposition to each other.

Here then we get to talk about the realities -- how do conference members change and what are the political forces that drive them? The only evidence I see of a conference wanting 16 teams is the SEC, and the evidence is less that clear. SEC seems willing to take on A&M and expand by adding another team as well, to end up at 14 (which ain't 16). Hmmm.... But the SEC seems a bit flummoxed as to how to add the 14th team. This is just the point the Purists would make -- this ain't no commodity market: teams are linked through traditional conference affiliations. I suppose the SEC could find a volunteer in the Big 12 (Mizzou, of course) or the Rube Goldberg machine that is the Big East (WVa, Lullville, Pitt, etc.).

The Big Ten seems to have utterly no interest in being a 16-team league. It would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat, but it would struggle hard -- I believe --before agreeing to take such financial dynamos as Texas + Oklahoma (which I doubt happens at all now that UT has its own network). I mean, the Nebraska choice astounded me and should have deflated most of the wind in the sails of the Theorists.

The ACC is happy where it is (Mostly Purists) and will need to be provoked before it expanded again. I suppose, if approached by four Big East teams, there would at least be a discussion, but I don't see anything happening there.

The PAC-12 might expand again, I suppose. The problem is the dearth of teams west of the 100th longitude. BYU is unacceptable, I guess, and there is no one else, unless NM, Colorado State or Wyoming goes through a significant upgrade. I think any expansion would occur if and only if Texas and Oklahoma decided to decamp for the PAC-12, bringing along two other teams.

The Big 12 and the Big East just basically want to survive and are having trouble holding onto its teams anyway.

So, OK Theorists: What is the mechanism or steps that lead to this 4 x 16 structure? I don't see it, and I don't think it is gonna happen. I mean, we are still using QWERTY many, many decades after the design became obsolete (it separated frequently used letters so manual typewriters would not jam).

And by the way, although we have had some fun with LaxBlueDevil on this thread, he is a Theorist: the best structure, he thinks, for Duke is a ten-team league that incorporates, except for Duke and UNC, one team per state up and down the Atlantic seaboard. If he had said, "This is my dream conference," help me figure out how it can happen, we might have had a different response. Instead he tried to argue that it was an inevitability, which it isn't, and drew a lot of flak.

sagegrouse

[A-Tex Devil]

I like the term "Purists."
Much of the discussion here and in the other thread (A-Tex Devil's) have had the Purists and the Theorists in opposition to each other.

So, OK Theorists: What is the mechanism or steps that lead to this 4 x 16 structure? I don't see it, and I don't think it is gonna happen. I mean, we are still using QWERTY many, many decades after the design became obsolete (it separated frequently used letters so manual typewriters would not jam).

sagegrouse

Good post. While I am hardly a purist, I don't consider myself a theorist either -- in the sense that I am theorizing on what should happen, what would be ideal, etc.

I like conference realignment talk (even though I'm not all that keen on realignment itself) because it's akin to watching a very high stakes game of poker. I enjoy the game theory (so it certainly is theory, but different than just making a guess at what the 4 16 conferences might/should be). Depending on how you look at it, last year, the Aggies made a huge bet on the river while being a calling station on every street up to that point. Texas and the Pac 12 folded. Did the Aggies have the cards? They'll tell you they did, but I'm not so sure. On another level, one could argue that last year's saving of the Big XII was the ultimate cooperation in a classic prisoner's dilemma - which you rarely see.

This is world class gamesmanship by some sharp (Dodds, Slive, Kramer) and not so sharp (Beebe, Byrne) individuals, combined with juvenile tropes like "I'll only go out with you if you asked me first" (see - SEC's response to A&M).

**IF** the SEC invites 4 teams, though, I think the wheels will be in motion for massive upheaval.

[sporthenry]

I like the term "Purists." I would broaden the definition to include those schools and influential individuals thereabouts that value conferences as a way of organizing competition and creating and preserving rivalries. My own view is that the ACC is filled with purists: everyone seems to like the conference, either because of tradition (the original seven), gratitude (VT and Miami), or practicalities (GT, BC and FSU). and, maybe I'm wrong.... We'll see over the next few years.

Here then we get to talk about the realities -- how do conference members change and what are the political forces that drive them? The only evidence I see of a conference wanting 16 teams is the SEC, and the evidence is less that clear. SEC seems willing to take on A&M and expand by adding another team as well, to end up at 14 (which ain't 16). Hmmm.... But the SEC seems a bit flummoxed as to how to add the 14th team. This is just the point the Purists would make -- this ain't no commodity market: teams are linked through traditional conference affiliations. I suppose the SEC could find a volunteer in the Big 12 (Mizzou, of course) or the Rube Goldberg machine that is the Big East (WVa, Lullville, Pitt, etc.).

The Big Ten seems to have utterly no interest in being a 16-team league. It would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat, but it would struggle hard -- I believe --before agreeing to take such financial dynamos as Texas + Oklahoma (which I doubt happens at all now that UT has its own network). I mean, the Nebraska choice astounded me and should have deflated most of the wind in the sails of the Theorists.

The ACC is happy where it is (Mostly Purists) and will need to be provoked before it expanded again. I suppose, if approached by four Big East teams, there would at least be a discussion, but I don't see anything happening there.

The Big 12 and the Big East just basically want to survive and are having trouble holding onto its teams anyway.

So, OK Theorists: What is the mechanism or steps that lead to this 4 x 16 structure? I don't see it, and I don't think it is gonna happen. I mean, we are still using QWERTY many, many decades after the design became obsolete (it separated frequently used letters so manual typewriters would not jam).


Well I will say that originally, I was saying that if one goes to 16, it really forces the others to go to 16. My previous post just argued why if one goes to 16, the others will follow. But I will discuss some of what could drive one conference most notably the SEC to 16. This talk of the SEC going to 16 started when the Big 10 expanded to 12 b/c they all want to have more value. This article (http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/188850-report-sec-has-expansion-plan-ready-if-needed) states that the SEC was looking at 16 teams last year and also states that college conferences are a huge pissing contest hence why if one goes, they all go. And the commisioner even mentioned that the SEC could get to 16 teams in 15 minutes at a press conference. Of course that could be taken out of context but it shows it was probably on his mind at least.

Ultimately, I agree that the BE and B12 are just trying survive. The Pac 12 seems content but could always poach a few B12 teams if they wanted. I haven't followed too much of the B10 but I'm not sure why adding Nebraska deflates the theorists. The B10 is probably content but could easily expand. And the ACC is content/can't really appeal to any team of value at the moment.

So I would say the first driving force would be the SEC's drive to get to 16. Whether that is a media driven craze or some sources deep within the conferences are leaking that information, I don't know.

But lets say the SEC just goes to 14 and poaches A&M and an ACC team. Then the ACC would be down to 11 and Big 12 down to 9. The B12 is already very volatile but at 9, I think you would see a bunch of schools start asking around before they get left out. They could always try to add someone like TCU but whatever they do, it would be a net loss of Nebraska, CU, A&M for TCU so teams like Mizzou, KU might prefer to join a better league then stay in mediocrity and rely on Texas and OU. And the ACC would have to get another team to get to 12. My guess is that it would be a Big East team like a Cuse or Pitt. So lets say we grab one of them, then the Big East loses one of its bigger programs and that drops them back to 8 assuming TCU doesn't leave for the Big 12.

So that leaves the BE at 8 and the B12 at 9. And at this point things can go a lot of ways. Conferences could stabilize but you'd have a lot of variables in play. You'd have the B10 and P12 who might want to jump to 14 to match the SEC b/c as that article states, its a pissing contest (and if one or both of them jump to 14, you'd be taking 2-4 more BCS teams most likely from BE or B12). So if the P12 takes 2 of the B12 that drops that conference to 7 or the B10 takes 2 BE teams they'd drop to 6 at this point. That would again cause either conference to collapse and members to look elsewhere.

But even if the P12 or B10 aren't actively seeking to expand, if two teams come to them like A&M is doing to the SEC would they reject them? The SEC would obviously love to tap into the Texas market so that is a driving force. So Mizzou would seem like a new market for the B10 and is already a border state. Would Iowa let ISU join, Penn State let Pitt? Would they want Rutgers? If KSU and KU go West, would the Pac 12 reject them?

Ultimately it appears a lot will rely on what the B12 will do to save itself but the way Texas acted this summer, they didn't seem too concerned with the rest of the conference and without A&M in the B12 that seems like less legislative pressure to stay. And monetarily speaking, 16 assets would be better than 14 if handled correctly and it would just increase the likelihood of having good teams.

I wouldn't say it is probable to happen but if I were a betting man, it seems to me that it is as likely as it isn't and there are so many variables which could push it that way.

[ForkFondler]

Pat Forde wrote a column with a "relegation" concept akin to this 2 or 3 years ago. Let me see if I can dig it up........ there (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4369091&sportCat=ncf).

It certainly is a worthy effort of creative writing. I actually thought it was a great concept, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't work in practice.

He does capture two of my three theses there. And as far as the the 1A consolidation thesis goes, Forde's prediction has already been proven correct, I think. The issue really isn't whether or not it happens, but how it happens. You have to remember that since current practice "works", apparently, just about anything else would work a little better. I'd say 64 teams is more realistic than 40.

[Verga3]

Great posts, all. Especially have enjoyed the incisive and descriptive musings of sagegrouse and A-Tex Devil. I agree that the ACC's DNA is Purist, sagegrouse. Thanks for the valuable overall context, A-Tex Devil.

The ACC is mostly content with the status quo...and the current schools are, too. But, Miami has created much indigestion, as has UNC of late. My personal opinion is that Miami should be either be proactively jetisoned, or benignly unblocked from moving along to the SEC (unless Florida throws too big of a fit for Slive to massage). I predict that the ACC will react to Miami, only if they have to...believing that the "new" athletic regime at Miami will fight to restore lost integrity. Watch your back though, Donna Shalala. Talk about lack of institutional control (or blindness)...Thorp and Baddour thank you. Time will tell, but it looks like Miami leaves a mark on the ACC. UNC will recover.

In addition to Miami (if that happens), and Virginia Tech and Florida State were to be approached and jump, then the Penn State, Syracuse, and South Carolina combo works for me. That combo could be huge.

Penn State: With Paterno retiring sometime? and the dynamics changing, they may consider the ACC as a conference they could be able to fashion another football National Championship run from. Their Olympic Sports are solid and, academically, they would be a good fit. Notre Dame replaces them in the Big Ten...writing is on the wall for the Irish. Go now.

Syracuse: Great school. Not a classic "NY market" school, but brings a good balance to the ACC in most every sport, and is a good academic match. Having BC and Penn State as ACC members would mitigate some travel budgets and classroom attendance issues that the ACC is always cognizant of. Jim Boeheim and Coach K are good friends (not that it matters).

South Carolina: A Purist pick....and a great potential fit. Wish they had never left the ACC. The Clemson/South Carolina rivalry is the same as Duke/Carolina, Alabama/Auburn, Michigan/Ohio State in the Palmetto state and beyond. Huge regional home run if this could ever happen. Steve Spurrier wants a National Championship. Could Steve play Clemson every year and still get there? He would think so. Great school. Rabid fans/alums and very solid Olympic Sports. Best baseball team in the NCAA.

This whole alignment business is very fluid, and some surprises will no doubt occur along the way. But, the ACC is in a position of strength, I believe, with the existing close member school relationships and the effective leadership of Commissioner Swofford and his fine staff. I trust that they will find the right way forward for our venerable Conference in this interesting and challenging time.

[sporthenry]

Penn State and USC aren't coming to the ACC. Just ain't happening and is why the ACC is status quo b/c they don't hold any cards to get these guys. Both the Big Ten and the SEC make more money than the ACC. And Penn State already makes a boat load of money as it stands now. The ACC can't offer them any more money and it would risk them possibly losing money. Then that doesn't even get into the similarities between Penn State and other Big Ten schools. Penn State is a B10 school. And if you want to talk sports, Penn State is going D-1 hockey while the Big Ten has plans to put hockey in the conference starting in 2013. And Penn State has a guys gymnastics team that has a great pedigree. So the only thing the ACC adds is Lacrosse.

In addition, USC isn't as big of a cash cow as Penn State to even have the option to leave. The SEC brand will keep USC there b/c just being in that revenue sharing brings in more than the ACC could. They also don't have a Lacrosse program but I guess they could finally get their soccer program to compete in same league as rest of sports but that doesn't seem to be a huge concern.

[Newton_14]

A little history lesson for the younguns on the board. Mega Conferences are nothing new. Sorry Big East, you still do not hold the record for most teams in a conference. The ACC and SEC were both spawned from the original Southern Conference, which is still alive today, but was huge back in the day. They started with 14 teams, you may be surprised at some of the names on the list. UNC, NC State, and Wake were in that group, and Duke joined them in 1929. They grew to 20 teams and then 23. In 1953, 7 teams left to form the original ACC.

Below is a blurb from WIki on the history. I hope we never see the 16 team mega conferences, but if we do, well, it is nothing that has not occurred in the past even before all the money came pouring in.

From Wiki

The conference was formed on February 25, 1921 in Atlanta as fourteen member institutions split from the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association.[1] Southern Conference charter members were Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Washington & Lee. In 1922, six more universities - Florida, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, and Vanderbilt joined the conference. Later additions included Sewanee (1923), Virginia Military Institute (1924), and Duke (1929).

The SoCon is particularly notable for having spawned two other major conferences. In 1933, thirteen schools located south and west of the Appalachians (Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Sewanee, Tennessee, Tulane, and Vanderbilt) departed the SoCon to form the Southeastern Conference (SEC).[1] In 1953, seven schools (Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina, and Wake Forest) withdrew from the SoCon to form the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).[1]Other former members include East Carolina (1964–76), East Tennessee State (1978–2005), George Washington (1936–70), Marshall (1976–97), Richmond (1936–76), William & Mary (1936–77) and West Virginia (1950–68).

[hughgs]

1AA would be more OK if it were more competitive -- that's the point.

How is 1AA not competitive? The top teams are roughly matched. I can't think of a better definition of competitive.


Bowls are quite the opposite of a system -- so no reason why a bowl couldn't match up a 1A team vs a 1AA team -- so long as niether was involved in their own respective championships. So, maybe Duke could go to another Rose bowl even if they were 1AA.

Are you suggesting that 1AA would have both a bowl system and a playoff system? Why would any want to watch a team go to a bowl if they didn't make the playoffs?

[Verga3]

A little history lesson for the younguns on the board. Mega Conferences are nothing new. Sorry Big East, you still do not hold the record for most teams in a conference. The ACC and SEC were both spawned from the original Southern Conference, which is still alive today, but was huge back in the day. They started with 14 teams, you may be surprised at some of the names on the list. UNC, NC State, and Wake were in that group, and Duke joined them in 1929. They grew to 20 teams and then 23. In 1953, 7 teams left to form the original ACC.

Below is a blurb from WIki on the history. I hope we never see the 16 team mega conferences, but if we do, well, it is nothing that has not occurred in the past even before all the money came pouring in.

From Wiki

Thanks for the history lesson, Newton_14. Lots of southern ties through the years. A striking one is Sewanee, now a DIII school. Off topic, but check out the best road trip in college football history....don't make 'em like they used to....even shutting out the Tar Heels in their final pristine game. Check it out. Cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Sewanee_Tigers_football_team

From Wiki: "The 1899 Iron Men team's most notable accomplishment was a six-day period from November 9 to 14 which is arguably the greatest road trip in college football history. Manager Luke Lea put together an improbable schedule of playing five big name opponents in six days, all on the road. Sewanee played and shut out them all while travelling by train for 2500 miles. This feat, barring fundamental changes in modern-day football, can never be equaled."

[Mal]

And if you want to talk sports, Penn State is going D-1 hockey while the Big Ten has plans to put hockey in the conference starting in 2013.

Thank you for echoing this for me. I was beginning to think no one else on here believed D-I hockey existed or something. :) It's a not-insignificant ingredient in the cement holding Penn State in the Big Ten for the forseeable future.

[formerdukeathlete]

Penn State and USC aren't coming to the ACC. Just ain't happening and is why the ACC is status quo b/c they don't hold any cards to get these guys. Both the Big Ten and the SEC make more money than the ACC. And Penn State already makes a boat load of money as it stands now. The ACC can't offer them any more money and it would risk them possibly losing money. Then that doesn't even get into the similarities between Penn State and other Big Ten schools. Penn State is a B10 school. And if you want to talk sports, Penn State is going D-1 hockey while the Big Ten has plans to put hockey in the conference starting in 2013. And Penn State has a guys gymnastics team that has a great pedigree. So the only thing the ACC adds is Lacrosse.

In addition, USC isn't as big of a cash cow as Penn State to even have the option to leave. The SEC brand will keep USC there b/c just being in that revenue sharing brings in more than the ACC could. They also don't have a Lacrosse program but I guess they could finally get their soccer program to compete in same league as rest of sports but that doesn't seem to be a huge concern.

fwiw, Penn State is closer to Maryland and UVa than it is to Ohio State, its closest Big Ten rival. Va Tech is virtually the same distance from Penn State as Ohio State is from State College. Running through all the schools and distances, the ACC overall is a closer fit geographically. Can Penn State really compete with a Michigan, an Ohio State, for Chicago metro recruits? What does Penn State offer over Big Ten schools in Chicago? Even more overcast weather, that is going to do it? On the otherhand, in the ACC, all up and down the East Coast, they would be the only non-SEC school to average over 100k in home game attendance. Not saying a move to the ACC would be likely, but an expansion offer might be structured so as to be a bit more compelling for Penn State, with teams also invited who are traditional rivals of Penn State.

[Mal]

fwiw, Penn State is closer to Maryland and UVa than it is to Ohio State, its closest Big Ten rival. Va Tech is virtually the same distance from Penn State as Ohio State is from State College. Running through all the schools and distances, the ACC overall is a closer fit geographically. Can Penn State really compete with a Michigan, an Ohio State, for Chicago metro recruits? What does Penn State offer over Big Ten schools in Chicago? Even more overcast weather, that is going to do it? On the otherhand, in the ACC, all up and down the East Coast, they would be the only non-SEC school to average over 100k in home game attendance. Not saying a move to the ACC would be likely, but an expansion offer might be structured so as to be a bit more compelling for Penn State, with teams also invited who are traditional rivals of Penn State.

1. This travel bit has become tiresome. It's not like these schools have their athletes riding in buses on 12 hour overnight trips or something these days. What's another 15 to 30 minutes on a plane? It's not like Penn State's regularly going to the West coast and changing three time zones or something. Travel would be an absolute nonfactor in the mythical consideration Penn State would give to a purely east coast conference wooing it. Culture would mean more. And central Pennsylvania has little to nothing in common with Clemson, South Carolina other than a love for football.

2. Who cares about the Chicago recruiting scene? Penn State's football team is still overwhelmingly cast of PA kids, anyway, and whether they're in a conference with Maryland or not, they've still got pick of the litter in Delaware, Maryland, and probably Jersey, with absolutely no competition from anyone else in its conference. If you're concerned the weather in State College sucks, call me crazy but you should be slightly concerned about PSU's ability to recruit the South, too.

3. Why would we water down the rest of the conference to add crappy "traditional rivals" of Penn State to entice them? Temple, Maryland, West Virginia, Rutgers, UConn and Syracuse are, presumably, who you're thinking of? Yum! As noted upthread, however, they've now been in the Big Ten for two decades. Their old rivalries in the mid-Atlantic are alive only in the minds of those 40+.

[sporthenry]

fwiw, Penn State is closer to Maryland and UVa than it is to Ohio State, its closest Big Ten rival. Va Tech is virtually the same distance from Penn State as Ohio State is from State College. Running through all the schools and distances, the ACC overall is a closer fit geographically. Can Penn State really compete with a Michigan, an Ohio State, for Chicago metro recruits? What does Penn State offer over Big Ten schools in Chicago? Even more overcast weather, that is going to do it? On the otherhand, in the ACC, all up and down the East Coast, they would be the only non-SEC school to average over 100k in home game attendance. Not saying a move to the ACC would be likely, but an expansion offer might be structured so as to be a bit more compelling for Penn State, with teams also invited who are traditional rivals of Penn State.

But when I say Penn State is a B10 school, it just has that feel. As mentioned, they average 100K at home games. They have 40,000+ enrollment something only 1 team in the ACC can boast. The Big 10 boasts the best graduate school rankings among conferences and they have a consortium which I'm sure with 8 schools of enrollment of 40,000+ gives them a great number of resources at their hands. And the fact that they can go to other teams who get 100K probably helps with their revenue sharing so the ACC would have to do a lot to sweeten the pot.

And as far as football recruiting, they don't really recruit over Big Ten schools in Chicago. They own Pennsylvania, dabble in NJ, MD, VA, NY and a few surrounding areas. They benefit b/c the Northeast is so weak at football that they are the most recognizable program North of the Mason-Dixon line. They can give people the Big Ten network while the Big East has very little football coverage. If anything, it makes no sense from a recruiting perspective to get a true Eastern conference at this point b/c that would just invite other teams into their recruiting areas. If MD and UCONN are in better football conferences, then Penn State has less draw over them for being in the B10 so PA recruits could still go close to home and MD or NY recruits would actually have alternatives.

[sporthenry]

3. Why would we water down the rest of the conference to add crappy "traditional rivals" of Penn State to entice them? Temple, Maryland, West Virginia, Rutgers, UConn and Syracuse are, presumably, who you're thinking of? Yum! As noted upthread, however, they've now been in the Big Ten for two decades. Their old rivalries in the mid-Atlantic are alive only in the minds of those 40+.

And I agree that being a younger person from the Northeast, Penn State alumni hate OSU. As far as Pitt, its about 50/50 depending upon what half of the state they came from but don't really care that much about any of the older rivalries.

[Jarhead]

Is this thread about what might actually happen, or about pipe dreams scribbled on the backs of bar napkins?


I think Pitt and Penn State recruit better as members of the ACC. Check where they tend to recruit players. Penn State recruits Virginia heavily. Boston College applications from the
Southeast are way up since joining the ACC. lax devil is on to something here. Maybe plan the next Northern expansion around the schools which work for Penn State as a package deal. They might be Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Viirginia.

Now it seems that this is The pipe dream thread. Does anybody have any actual facts to support any of the pipe dreams that are floating about? What school other than South Carolina has left the ACC? Nobody! As I recall, South Carolina departed the ACC because of football Coach Paul Dietzel's desire to take his team to independent status. Wow, they would make all kinds of money. Bad move of the century. Now we have people speculating that almost everybody in the ACC wants to leave. Take it from me, nobody is leaving, and South Carolina would return in a heart beat. Well maybe not. The ACC has virtually shunned them ever since their departure. Why else would they eventually join the SEC?

[laxbluedevil]

Reduced travel costs and travel times is a major reason PSU should join a new Easterrn or Atlantic League with traditional rivals BC, UConn, Syracuse, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU. Lots of nonrevenue sports take buses and would prefer the much shorter trips PSU would take to most opponents, most league rivals would be a bus trip away, while only maybe one B10/11/12 school is that way with lots of expensive flights to empty cornfields and dying abandoned rust belt ruins with bad weather and pollution and just crumbling in every way that so many Americans are running away from for a reason. Houses all over Detroit, Cleveland, etc., and the empty wastelands in between, can be bought for a few thousand dollars, because the neighborhoods are like ghost towns, PSU wants no part of that. Central PA? PSU is filled almost exclusively with suburban east coast Philly and Pittsburgh kids who are no different than the DC, Baltimore, NYC, suburban kids that go to MD, UVA, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, UConn, BC, etc. People tend to move up and down their time zones, north or south from DC or NYC or Philly, moving east or west is a big culture shock dealing with outsiders which is why PSU never played any B10 school before joining in 1993. Since FSU joined ACC to form 9 in 1992, ACC was obviously full of idiot leaders back then. Would have been far better to have PSU and FSU in a 10 team ACC than for PSU to join as the ELEVENTH Big TEN member, especially given their location and history, but ACC didn't even invite them!

Recruiting and TV exposure is huge, PSU recruiting has fallen off because they're no longer on TV in the very regions they've always recruited from, MD, VA, NC, DE, NJ, NY, the northeast, etc., none of those places show PSU football and why would anyone there watch a B10/11/12 school if they did? They'd watch if PSU was on TV and part of an eastern league that played their state and region's schools though. Sorry, but nobody's going to be able to make an argument that PSU actually BEING ON TV in their natural recruiting areas of the midatlantic and northeast wouldn't be a huge benefit to them. A new atlantic league gives them that, as well are more money per school, better academics, easier and cheaper travel, better sports especially hoops and lacrosse, and a better competitive level for their football team to win a league title often instead of never like in 20 years of the B10/11/12 while playing historic rivals. Nobody under 40 will have any say whatsoever in what PSU decides by the way, but the point is that when they were independent before 1993, they could have played anybody, and they chose to play their NATURAL EASTERN RIVALS. They haven't won a football national title since joining the B10/11/12 and haven't come close to playing for one since 94, and their program has clearly declined since then, while hoops has been stagnant and ignored. Again, they want and need to be on TV in their natural eastern recruiting regions, and the only way that happens is in my new atlantic league with all their old nearby rivals and great academic peers.

[laxbluedevil]

Just found out Penn State WANTED TO JOIN THE ACC in the 80s and was turned down!! Penn State then WANTED TO JOIN THE BIG EAST, and was turned down!!! B10/11/12 is third choice at best because there was no other conferences around so they had to go out of their region! This was when the ACC didn't even have BC or FSU, and was just a small regional carolina conference, so PSU would be ten times more interested in joining a new eastern league that got rid of the likes of Wake and NCSU while adding their historic rivals UConn, Syracuse, to BC, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU. So that debate is over, Penn State is in. Now why else would any of the other 10 schools turn down a new eastern atlantic league, before we make this happen?

formerdukeathlete makes a great point about BC applications being way up from the southeast. How much would applications from the Northeast go up for these former ACC schools and PSU and UConn and Syracuse while doubling TV coverage and adding every decent athletic programs in the north? People making this decision will be ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS like presidents, professors, administrators, trustees, then coaches and athletic officials. Primary concerns are prestige and selectivity and increasing exposure and applications and money and donations, as well as athletic success and revenue, and all of that gets much better with a new eastern Atlantic League of BC, UConn, Syracuse, PSU, MD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU.

[laxbluedevil]

It gets better, not only did Penn State try to join BOTH the ACC and Big East, Paterno himself tried to START an eastern all sports conference to counter the basketball Big East. Also, Paterno said that after 1) he failed to start his own all sports league with MD, BC, Syracuse, 2) Big East rejected him, and 3) ACC rejected him, PSU didn't want to be "left out in the cold" so as a desperate last resort to get into a conference, ANY conference, they reluctantly joined the B10/11/12 despite the fact that they were a bunch of Iowans living in $5000 houses that can't even count to 11. PSU football has been horrible in B10/11, in 2000-2004, they went 26-33! Paterno's own eastern all sports conference would have included by his own design and invitation, longtime regional rivals Maryland, Syracuse, and BC, and since UConn didn't even have div.IA football at the time he would certainly invite one of the best eastern all sports schools now, and would love to be with former ACC members UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU.


http://www.linebacker-u.com/2011/05/argument-against-renewing-pitt-penn-state-rivalry/

"In the late 70′s when Penn State was a football independent, Paterno (and Penn State) tried to get into the Big East. The Big East never responded (how’s that decision looking today Big East) so Paterno set out to create an eastern all-sports conference. He asked Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse to join PSU. BC and Syracuse didn’t budge because Pitt jumped into the Big East in basketball but remained a football independent, thus crushing Joe’s dream. Paterno never forgave Pitt."


http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/66059-why-pitt-still-irks-paterno

"Paterno still harbors hard feelings toward Pitt for wrecking plans for what he described as a "nice little eight-team" league that would have included seven Eastern schools and Atlantic Coast Conference defector Maryland."


Wow, a new eastern Atlantic League would be perfect for PSU as if Paterno designed it himself, because he kind of did, a long time ago: PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, MD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU.

[J.Blink]

Your ranting over fantasy super conferences and which Duke coach of the week you're afraid is going to leave (dealing Duke athletics a death blow in the process) aside, can you lay off insulting large segments of both the country and Duke students and alums? We get it, you like the east coast urban areas and hate the "dying abandoned rust belt ruins with bad weather and pollution" and the "the empty wastelands in between." Comments like those--along with the rest of your histrionics--just really reinforce the (usually laughable) stereotypes that are tossed around about Duke, and I doubt they are winning you many supporters here either.

[sporthenry]

Yes, insulting the middle part of the country makes you look ridiculous. Are you aware that the B10 was the only conference to have all their members as AAU members until Nebraska lost that distinction the year they made the jump? The B10 has a great academic network with collaboration and top notch research so putting them down makes you look stupid.

As far as Joe Pa, he is a spiteful old man and isn't about to turn around and help out teams the screwed him over 30 years ago. I doubt he sees Pitt as the only team to screw him over. And his dream of an Eastern conference was mostly Northeastern schools so I don't see how he prefers G. Tech or FSU over Nebraska and Wisconsin.

And I love how you said Penn State has sucked since joining the BE, then you qualified that statement b/c in 2005, they were a 2 point loss at #10 Michigan from going undefeated. Then they are also coming off 2 seasons of top 10 finishes which is more than most of the ACC can say. And Penn State doesn't really need that much more exposure in the Northeast. They aren't losing out recruiting battles to Uconn or Syracuse. When Texas or Florida comes up North, they might lose some but they are on ABC plenty enough as it is. They get just about every recruit in PA and are consistently in the top 25 for recruiting classes and the only two teams that compete with them is OSU and UM. And while I'm not a big follower of all the college football recruiting, the last big battle they seemed to lose out on would be Pryor to tOSU and perhaps they won that one in the end?

And finally, while Joe Pa might want some more Eastern teams in the B10 as he lobbied for Rutgers to join the B10, he wants the championship game b/c he recognizes its importance. So why would he leave a 12 team league for a 10 team? Penn State is doing just fine and unless you give them a ND or Texas sized deal, they aren't going to leave.

[formerdukeathlete]

..................And Penn State doesn't really need that much more exposure in the Northeast. They aren't losing out recruiting battles to Uconn or Syracuse. When Texas or Florida comes up North, they might lose some but they are on ABC plenty enough as it is. They get just about every recruit in PA and are consistently in the top 25 for recruiting classes and the only two teams that compete with them is OSU and UM. And while I'm not a big follower of all the college football recruiting, the last big battle they seemed to lose out on would be Pryor to tOSU and perhaps they won that one in the end?

And finally, while Joe Pa might want some more Eastern teams in the B10 as he lobbied for Rutgers to join the B10, he wants the championship game b/c he recognizes its importance. So why would he leave a 12 team league for a 10 team? Penn State is doing just fine and unless you give them a ND or Texas sized deal, they aren't going to leave.

On recruiting, my point in the Chicago area analogy, is that Penn State does not recruit much in Big Ten school country, but they have in the past recruited out of Virgina, Florida, Georgia, and I believe as a member of the ACC, they recruit better talent outside of PA, than they are able to do right now. Regarding distances, friends, families of players, fans could travel to games by car more easily within the ACC. And, in traveling south, say to Raleigh Durham, Penn State fans get a break from the dreary State College weather in the fall - very often overcast.

Penn State may see a benefit academically. The ACC has 6 schools in the top 40 USNWR. The Big Ten has 2.

I agree with you that it would take a special deal to land Penn State. I would rather we did not go to super conferences of as many as 16 members. But, if we have no choice, for one reason or another, then an ACC merged with some Football members of the Big East along with Penn State to form a northern division would be a fairly desirable outcome.

[Kedsy]

Culture would mean more. And central Pennsylvania has little to nothing in common with Clemson, South Carolina other than a love for football.

Well, I don't know. Here in southeastern PA, we talk about Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and "the Alabama in between," so central PA might have more in common with South Carolina than you think.

[uh_no]

Penn State may see a benefit academically. The ACC has 6 schools in the top 40 USNWR. The Big Ten has 2.


This is sort of a silly argument, and I'm not picking on you, but the argument that a school would benefit academically from being in a conference. While a conference may aim to have certain schools academically, its not like USNWR would suddenly improve PSU's rankings if they moved to the ACC. It's not like the quality of education or research at PSU would suddenly improve, or collaboration among professors would change. Professors collaborate regardless of what conference they're in. In short, the "academic benefit" you purport is really quite meaningless.

The whole 'this confeerence is smarter than that one' thing is so dumb anyway. Each conference has more and less academically inclined schools. The counter argument is "LOOK AT THE SEC!!!!"...florida, for instance, is a very good school. While you can point out that the the SEC on the whole is less academically inclined than the Big10, this is 100% due to the distribution of top universities in the. These universities are disporportionately located in the North.

Anyway, its 100% about money, and in my opinion, if you think its about anything else, you're naive.

[formerdukeathlete]

This is sort of a silly argument, and I'm not picking on you, but the argument that a school would benefit academically from being in a conference. While a conference may aim to have certain schools academically, its not like USNWR would suddenly improve PSU's rankings if they moved to the ACC. It's not like the quality of education or research at PSU would suddenly improve, or collaboration among professors would change. Professors collaborate regardless of what conference they're in. In short, the "academic benefit" you purport is really quite meaningless.

The whole 'this confeerence is smarter than that one' thing is so dumb anyway. Each conference has more and less academically inclined schools. The counter argument is "LOOK AT THE SEC!!!!"...florida, for instance, is a very good school. While you can point out that the the SEC on the whole is less academically inclined than the Big10, this is 100% due to the distribution of top universities in the. These universities are disporportionately located in the North.

Anyway, its 100% about money, and in my opinion, if you think its about anything else, you're naive.

There is something more to the academic benefit argument. Boston College would assert that they have benefited academically by joinging a conference with more highly ranked schools. BC has dramatically increased applications from the Southeast. They cite associating with Duke, UVa, Ga Tech, UNC, Wake, all higher ranked institutions than BC when they joined the conference. And, BC's rankings have improved since then.

Va Tech and Clemson have increased research, including collaborative efforts with other ACC schools. Clemson may not wish to leave the ACC for academic reasons, I believe their President has said as much.

There is a poster on this Board who personally knows a University of Florida trustee and who relayed a comment last go around of expansion that Florida actually discussed the ACC at that point in time. The attraction would have been of an academic, academic research nature. Only Vandy and Florida of the SEC are true research universities.

Which move, a Florida or aPenn State, would be met with greater inertia - putting aside the exit fee issue, and presuming tv contracts were closer (A Penn State package with Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt or UConn, plus one more, either Pitt or UConn, were we to lose Va Tech to the SEC, should rework our TV package significantly)? I think there would be less inertia re a move by Penn State. Penn State would be in a conference with more natural rivals and a league presence in the fast growing southeast (recruits), yet which reduces their travel distances and includes some more desirable destinations. Penn State fans that I know are not that enthusiastic about traveling to other Big Ten venues as a whole.

Central PA seems to share as much or more in common with Baltimore as it does with Philadelphia. And, the poster about Alabama between Philie and Pittsburgh makes a joke, but it is partly true, much more rural overall with smaller town environments.

Not likely, but the world might change very rapidly and we should have some scenarios in mind about how to proceed if it does.

[A-Tex Devil]

This is sort of a silly argument, and I'm not picking on you, but the argument that a school would benefit academically from being in a conference. While a conference may aim to have certain schools academically, its not like USNWR would suddenly improve PSU's rankings if they moved to the ACC. It's not like the quality of education or research at PSU would suddenly improve, or collaboration among professors would change. Professors collaborate regardless of what conference they're in. In short, the "academic benefit" you purport is really quite meaningless.

The whole 'this confeerence is smarter than that one' thing is so dumb anyway. Each conference has more and less academically inclined schools. The counter argument is "LOOK AT THE SEC!!!!"...florida, for instance, is a very good school. While you can point out that the the SEC on the whole is less academically inclined than the Big10, this is 100% due to the distribution of top universities in the. These universities are disporportionately located in the North.

Anyway, its 100% about money, and in my opinion, if you think its about anything else, you're naive.

This is half right and half wrong. You are right it's entirely about money, but it also is about academics. Penn State's Academics, for instance, actually benefit more from being in the Big Ten than they would the ACC. One of the reasons Texas was seriously considering the Big Ten was because of the boost it could give academics. Nebraska's standing is going to steadily improve.

Why you ask? The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx), is why. The CIC includes the Big Ten schools and the University of Chicago. This nothing to sneeze at, and it opens up a new source of academic cash to universities lucky enough to join. I imagine that you'll start to see UNL climbing up the college rankings in the next few years as they get to lean on resources of the other CIC schools, and the other CIC schools get to collaborate with UNL on the things it does well. The CIC is a huge resource of grant money which is shared among its members, funding and facilitating all sorts of inter-university research in all fields. Example -- Northwestern gets a grant to research X, and part of X is a specialty that Iowa excels at, Northwestern collaborates with Iowa to maximize the effort. It's a great system, one the Pac 12 is currently trying to emulate, and one I doubt you'll ever see in the other 4 conferences.

[uh_no]

There is something more to the academic benefit argument. Boston College would assert that they have benefited academically by joinging a conference with more highly ranked schools. BC has dramatically increased applications from the Southeast. They cite associating with Duke, UVa, Ga Tech, UNC, Wake, all higher ranked institutions than BC when they joined the conference. And, BC's rankings have improved since then.

Va Tech and Clemson have increased research, including collaborative efforts with other ACC schools. Clemson may not wish to leave the ACC for academic reasons, I believe their President has said as much.

There is a poster on this Board who personally knows a University of Florida trustee and who relayed a comment last go around of expansion that Florida actually discussed the ACC at that point in time. The attraction would have been of an academic, academic research nature. Only Vandy and Florida of the SEC are true research universities.

Which move, a Florida or aPenn State, would be met with greater inertia - putting aside the exit fee issue, and presuming tv contracts were closer (A Penn State package with Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt or UConn, plus one more, either Pitt or UConn, were we to lose Va Tech to the SEC, should rework our TV package significantly)? I think there would be less inertia re a move by Penn State. Penn State would be in a conference with more natural rivals and a league presence in the fast growing southeast (recruits), yet which reduces their travel distances and includes some more desirable destinations. Penn State fans that I know are not that enthusiastic about traveling to other Big Ten venues as a whole.

Central PA seems to share as much or more in common with Baltimore as it does with Philadelphia. And, the poster about Alabama between Philie and Pittsburgh makes a joke, but it is partly true, much more rural overall with smaller town environments.

Not likely, but the world might change very rapidly and we should have some scenarios in mind about how to proceed if it does.

Thanks for filling in. I guess I look at it more from a duke perspective. We go to any conference and we're still duke, and can get whatever collaborations we want, this is not the same for every school. I think, though, splitting hairs over the slight differences in rankings between the Big10 and ACC is silly. There are great academic schools in either conference.

[ForkFondler]

This is half right and half wrong. You are right it's entirely about money, but it also is about academics. Penn State's Academics, for instance, actually benefit more from being in the Big Ten than they would the ACC. One of the reasons Texas was seriously considering the Big Ten was because of the boost it could give academics. Nebraska's standing is going to steadily improve.

Why you ask? The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx), is why. The CIC includes the Big Ten schools and the University of Chicago. This nothing to sneeze at, and it opens up a new source of academic cash to universities lucky enough to join. I imagine that you'll start to see UNL climbing up the college rankings in the next few years as they get to lean on resources of the other CIC schools, and the other CIC schools get to collaborate with UNL on the things it does well. The CIC is a huge resource of grant money which is shared among its members, funding and facilitating all sorts of inter-university research in all fields. Example -- Northwestern gets a grant to research X, and part of X is a specialty that Iowa excels at, Northwestern collaborates with Iowa to maximize the effort. It's a great system, one the Pac 12 is currently trying to emulate, and one I doubt you'll ever see in the other 4 conferences.

Doesn't the fact that Chicago is still in the CIC in spite of the fact that they left the Big Ten over 70 years ago prove that athletic association really has little to do with it?

[J.Blink]

There is something more to the academic benefit argument. Boston College would assert that they have benefited academically by joinging a conference with more highly ranked schools. BC has dramatically increased applications from the Southeast. They cite associating with Duke, UVa, Ga Tech, UNC, Wake, all higher ranked institutions than BC when they joined the conference. And, BC's rankings have improved since then.

Beyond you asserting it, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? That is, has BC's Southern applicant pool actually increased disproportionately to other pools, and is there any reason to believe this is because of joining the ACC?

I know that when I went to college fairs in Durham in the 90s, BC always had a presence. A good family friend was a diehard BC fan and alumnus and frequently would man the booth at these events. I'll never forget that at this one college fair--I think it was held at Southern--he was at the BC booth and had a box full of Sports Illustrateds that had a cover image of BC beating Carolina, and was handing them out to anybody who stopped by. "Take That, Tar Heels!" (http://www.vintageadsandstuff.com/viewsi032894.jpeg) I've had a soft spot for BC ever since!

This family friend died unexpectedly and young, and I always felt it only added to the tragedy that he JUST missed seeing BC join the ACC.
2014

[A-Tex Devil]

Doesn't the fact that Chicago is still in the CIC in spite of the fact that they left the Big Ten over 70 years ago prove that athletic association really has little to do with it?

Doesn't the fact that the CIC invited Nebraska beginning this year (and PSU when it joined the Big Ten) say otherwise? Why wouldn't you include UC given the opportunity?

[A-Tex Devil]

Thought people might find this blog post (http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/08/23/big-cigar-with-some-realignment-news/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook) interesting....

Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I've been reading BC and Recruitocosm for a while now, and this source has been dead on accurate with just about everything. Seems to be reporting stream of conscience thinking from UT AD, but we shall see.

[formerdukeathlete]

Beyond you asserting it, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? That is, has BC's Southern applicant pool actually increased disproportionately to other pools, and is there any reason to believe this is because of joining the ACC?

I know that when I went to college fairs in Durham in the 90s, BC always had a presence. A good family friend was a diehard BC fan and alumnus and frequently would man the booth at these events. I'll never forget that at this one college fair--I think it was held at Southern--he was at the BC booth and had a box full of Sports Illustrateds that had a cover image of BC beating Carolina, and was handing them out to anybody who stopped by. "Take That, Tar Heels!" (http://www.vintageadsandstuff.com/viewsi032894.jpeg) I've had a soft spot for BC ever since!

This family friend died unexpectedly and young, and I always felt it only added to the tragedy that he JUST missed seeing BC join the ACC.
2014

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/25/boston_college_allure_spreads_southward/ And, I understand that since this article in 07, the percentage increases from southeast schools over 2005 baseline are greater. I'll assert that, based on conversations with BC grads.

[fan345678]

Beyond you asserting it, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? That is, has BC's Southern applicant pool actually increased disproportionately to other pools, and is there any reason to believe this is because of joining the ACC?
2014

I would think that formerdukeathlete's argument here is pretty obvious. Sports provide a marketing forum. Just think about all the university commercials that are run during sports broadcasts. I mean, if Duke were in the Big East, we'd all still go to NC State; we just wouldn't know it. And, how else would we know that Charles Kuralt liked to be bound to the old well?

[sporthenry]

Well I don't discount the whole applicant pool increasing but that really wouldn't affect Penn State nearly as much. They are a state school where in state tuition is much lower than out of state tuition. And I'm not sure how tax payers would feel if a disproportionate amount of money went to out of state applicants so it might increase but not nearly to the effect of a private institution. Penn State is a great research school which is mostly graduate school and I'm sure exposure would help but if you are going to graduate school, it is normally up to the applicant to find the school which most suits its specialties and Penn State was ranked 9th from the National Science Foundation in terms of R&D for science and engineering. So I think Penn State can rely on their credentials for graduate school. And undergraduate wise, kids will probably have to pay more to attend out of state unless they are top notch at which case they'd probably be able to go private and get a comparable if not better financial aid package. Academics wouldn't drive any Penn State decision. With 44,000 kids at Main Campus and 19 satellite campuses for kids who can't get into Main Campus, I think they are find when it comes to numbers anyways.

[sagegrouse]

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/25/boston_college_allure_spreads_southward/ And, I understand that since this article in 07, the percentage increases from southeast schools over 2005 baseline are greater. I'll assert that, based on conversations with BC grads.

This is a good citation and is proof that all publicity is good publicity. If students have never heard of Boston College, then through my tremendous powers of deduction I can conclude that they will not submit an application. (What? There is also a Boston University? Are they related?)

FWIW, there are 738 students at BC from ACC states (plus DC), roughly one-third each from Maryland and Florida and the others scattered. Student body size is about 9100.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

This is a good citation and is proof that all publicity is good publicity. If students have never heard of Boston College, then through my tremendous powers of deduction I can conclude that they will not submit an application. (What? There is also a Boston University? Are they related?)

FWIW, there are 738 students at BC from ACC states (plus DC), roughly one-third each from Maryland and Florida and the others scattered. Student body size is about 9100.

sagegrouse

One could argue a couple things here: first, with the fantastic onset of the internet over the past 15 years (along with ease of access to rankings), its unquestionable that its easier to find out about colleges around the country remote from your locality. Furthermore, when a member of a conference, you get publicity, and sports publicity leads to increases in applications. I don't have the numbers, but the number of applications Davidson got rose significantly when it was on the national stage with Curry. I wouldn't be suprised if Butler has seen a similar bump (given, Butler was already more well known than davidson in the basketball world). With these two conclusions, its not hard to conclude that joining ANY athletic conference would lead to an increase in applications and thus students from geographical areas which that conference is comprised of. If BC had joined the SEC, do you not thing there would have been an increase in applications from the South East? It probbaly wouldn't have been as significant as the ACC effect, simply due to the southern, um, culture as well as the increased distance. Had they joined the Big 10, they probably would have seen increased applications from that area.

I therefore think, and this is my opinion, not indisputable fact, that the increase in applications after a conference change is much more due to the increased publicity that school gets rather than any percieved academic qualities inherent in the conference. I would doubt that BC faculty are any more interested in collaborating with FSU or UNC faculty any more than they would have previously, simply because of geographical disparity. Which leads to my next point: that faculties collaborate with schools near to them, who also happen to be schools most likely to be in their conference.

Bottom Line: Correlation does not imply causation. Increased applications can be better explained by increased publicity rather than the academic prowess of those they associate with (except for maybe the Ivy League), and collaboration better explained by distance between campuses rather than sports associations.

[formerdukeathlete]

..........
I therefore think, and this is my opinion, not indisputable fact, that the increase in applications after a conference change is much more due to the increased publicity that school gets rather than any percieved academic qualities inherent in the conference. I would doubt that BC faculty are any more interested in collaborating with FSU or UNC faculty any more than they would have previously, simply because of geographical disparity. Which leads to my next point: that faculties collaborate with schools near to them, who also happen to be schools most likely to be in their conference.......

Boston College admissions has the actual data. Your hypothesis does not seem to be supported by the actual data. In addition, ACC schools on average are more selective than Big Ten schools in terms of percentages of applicants admitted. The Big Ten has a research coalition, but with the exception of NW and MI, the schools are fairly fungible commodities. Albeit, they are good research schools, but they are fairly undesirable destinations, and they are not as selective in admissions - rust belt, even declining populations. It is not an apples and apples comparison.

But, the point is really what we may infer from this and many other facts in order to have an appropriate approach re expansion. Penn State would have some reasons to consider a package deal with the ACC. Not that they would be easy to land. But, we can try.

[uh_no]

Boston College admissions has the actual data. Your hypothesis does not seem to be supported by the actual data.

Let me reiterate that my thesis was that increased applications from the south stem from increased exposure rather than any percieved academic quality in the ACC. I fail to see how any BC admissions data would support or refute that point (unless of course they ask on the application "did you choose to apply to BC because you think the ACC has a strong history of academics?" which i'm fairly sure they don't). The article you posted, in fact, seems to support my theory that increased applications are from increased exposure rather than anything else.

[sporthenry]

Let me reiterate that my thesis was that increased applications from the south stem from increased exposure rather than any percieved academic quality in the ACC. I fail to see how any BC admissions data would support or refute that point (unless of course they ask on the application "did you choose to apply to BC because you think the ACC has a strong history of academics?" which i'm fairly sure they don't). The article you posted, in fact, seems to support my theory that increased applications are from increased exposure rather than anything else.

And if you want to look at rankings (which aren't perfect by any means) BC stood on its own academically before the ACC. In the 2005 rankings which are published in the Summer of 2004, BC was ranked tied for 37. Now they are tied for 31. A nice increase no doubt but hardly what some are making it out to be. And perhaps the increase is purely cosmetic in the sense they got more applications and better students from the South which increased selectivity? I have no doubt that joining the ACC over the Big East has helped with some collaboration but again, it isn't like they are in the Triangle so they can't really be in a true consortium where a kid could go 20 minutes to UNC-CH to take a class not offered at BC.

I would agree the increase in Southern applications show nothing about ACC affiliations and if anything, it would appear that it was a result of kids finding out more about BC from the South and realizing that BC was already a premier academic institution.

And these benefits provided to Penn State like increased exposure/academics are 20 years late as the B10 has already done that. On top of that Penn State is a public university so the rules are different in terms of applications. An increase in applications from the South would hardly help them apart from probably driving up their selectivity. As a result of the B10 they get great national exposure in the sporting world being on ESPN and ABC throughout the year. And many here seem to underrate the collaboration among B10 schools. They can save funds and maximize research and being in these rural areas probably help them out b/c they are able to build large science and engineer builidings at smaller costs, so being out in the dying part of the country may not be all that bad especially since universities are thriving, I doubt most kids at school realize how bad it is until they get out looking for a job.

But you are asking for Penn State to give up its collaboration with the rest of the Big Ten for an affiliation with the ACC with less opportunites than the B10 would seemingly provide. Not only that, but in some respects you can make a case the B10 is a better academic conference with its AAU status and its graduate school rankings. Then you are also possibly talking about losing research money from the CIC. Yes the U of C stayed but that is b/c they are in the middle of B10 country and dropped their sports in the 40's didn't leave the conference for greener pastures which I think would be grounds for them getting kicked out.

And then, you are talking about the ACC offering Penn State a deal like Texas or ND commands. That would seem to be a mistake b/c while Penn State is a big school, they aren't Texas or ND and I'm not sure how the rest of the ACC would react to cuts in the revenue sharing.

[fan345678]

I would agree the increase in Southern applications show nothing about ACC affiliations and if anything, it would appear that it was a result of kids finding out more about BC from the South and realizing that BC was already a premier academic institution.

An increase in applications from the South would hardly help them apart from probably driving up their selectivity.


While I agree that Penn State has little to no reason to be interested in the ACC as compared to the Big TwENleve, I can't figure out how you guys aren't connecting the dots between ACC affiliation and kids from the South finding out more about BC.

To cast the affiliation-academic profile argument in a different light, consider Clemson. If Clemson were in the SEC, they would have less crossover in their applicant pool with Duke, Wake, UVa, and UNC, and more with Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama. Some kid in Charlotte who grew up glued to ACC sports broadcasts and who could get into Duke or Wake needs to throw in a couple safety schools (other than UNC), and since he's been watching Clemson and VT for years, where do you think those applications are gonna go? Plus, who knows...he might get a bit of scholarship money to sweeten the deal.

Or, there's another ACC-watching kid who's looking for an private school in a city setting. Before BC and Miami entered the league, they might have been considered along with George Washington, Duquesne, American, Villanova, etc. But the ACC ties definitely raise the kid's awareness (and sentimentality, which is a lot tougher to quantify).

[uh_no]

I can't figure out how you guys aren't connecting the dots between ACC affiliation and kids from the South finding out more about BC.


Who's saying that? In fact almost everyone here is saying that ACC affiliation increases exposure to kids in the south. The argument is that it is simple exposure, not an increased perception of BC's academic worth that is driving the increase in applications from the region.

[formerdukeathlete]

While I agree that Penn State has little to no reason to be interested in the ACC as compared to the Big TwENleve, I can't figure out how you guys aren't connecting the dots between ACC affiliation and kids from the South finding out more about BC.

To cast the affiliation-academic profile argument in a different light, consider Clemson. If Clemson were in the SEC, they would have less crossover in their applicant pool with Duke, Wake, UVa, and UNC, and more with Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama. Some kid in Charlotte who grew up glued to ACC sports broadcasts and who could get into Duke or Wake needs to throw in a couple safety schools (other than UNC), and since he's been watching Clemson and VT for years, where do you think those applications are gonna go? Plus, who knows...he might get a bit of scholarship money to sweeten the deal.

Or, there's another ACC-watching kid who's looking for an private school in a city setting. Before BC and Miami entered the league, they might have been considered along with George Washington, Duquesne, American, Villanova, etc. But the ACC ties definitely raise the kid's awareness (and sentimentality, which is a lot tougher to quantify).

I guess we are getting to the point of mentioning all sides of this issue, and your post is a very good one. Penn State is a bit isolated geographically, smack in the middle of the state, rural surrounding areas, and Penn State fans feel pretty isolated from the rivalries of the Big Ten in the sense that most live in Pennsylvania and their friends, family members have been much more likely to have attended Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, than Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, all save Ohio State, which is a big rivalry. The Big Ten works from a research, funding perspective, and maybe its the best thing for Penn State in the long run. That is, unless a new mega conference offered Penn State's natural rivalries, less travel, and a chance to improve its applicant pool in the way BC, Clemson, VT have as a result of being members of the ACC. And, importantly, offered Penn State a similar conference tv payout. That part may or may not be possible.

[sporthenry]

While I agree that Penn State has little to no reason to be interested in the ACC as compared to the Big TwENleve, I can't figure out how you guys aren't connecting the dots between ACC affiliation and kids from the South finding out more about BC.

To cast the affiliation-academic profile argument in a different light, consider Clemson. If Clemson were in the SEC, they would have less crossover in their applicant pool with Duke, Wake, UVa, and UNC, and more with Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama. Some kid in Charlotte who grew up glued to ACC sports broadcasts and who could get into Duke or Wake needs to throw in a couple safety schools (other than UNC), and since he's been watching Clemson and VT for years, where do you think those applications are gonna go? Plus, who knows...he might get a bit of scholarship money to sweeten the deal.

Or, there's another ACC-watching kid who's looking for an private school in a city setting. Before BC and Miami entered the league, they might have been considered along with George Washington, Duquesne, American, Villanova, etc. But the ACC ties definitely raise the kid's awareness (and sentimentality, which is a lot tougher to quantify).

Yes, you pretty much explained what we we're saying. And I'd even take it a step further in the sense that BC benefitted more than say Clemson b/c they were a northern school that people in the south probably knew little about whereas down south whether your conference is the SEC, ACC or another, you would probably have heard of Clemson.

But that said, it isn't like these kids say, wow, those guys are in the same league as Duke and UNC-CH, they must be a top notch academic institution. And I think its immediate increase shows that it was just this exposure and BC's already great academics as opposed to the ACC raising them up.

[sporthenry]

I guess we are getting to the point of mentioning all sides of this issue, and your post is a very good one. Penn State is a bit isolated geographically, smack in the middle of the state, rural surrounding areas, and Penn State fans feel pretty isolated from the rivalries of the Big Ten in the sense that most live in Pennsylvania and their friends, family members have been much more likely to have attended Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, than Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, all save Ohio State, which is a big rivalry. The Big Ten works from a research, funding perspective, and maybe its the best thing for Penn State in the long run. That is, unless a new mega conference offered Penn State's natural rivalries, less travel, and a chance to improve its applicant pool in the way BC, Clemson, VT have as a result of being members of the ACC. And, importantly, offered Penn State a similar conference tv payout. That part may or may not be possible.

Even with a mega conference, the B10 would probably keep its current standards and research base and go after schools like ND, Pitt, Rutgers, etc. And I don't see why kids in PA are more likely to go to Penn State makes it a huge issue. When dealing with most major state schools, I don't think there is a chance of those kids going to different state schools. Heck, with some of those rivalries I doubt they'd even want to go other places. Would an Auburn family allow their kid to go to Alabama or Tennessee? I'm sure if the kid really wanted to go, they would let him but not after some ribbing. How many kids from Columbus are going up to Wisconsin or the other way around?

And again, how is the ACC going to help its application numbers? How many Southerners want to come up North to a place with heated sidewalks in the middle of nowhere? And to boot, its a public university which mean it is funded with state dollars. Out of state tuition is substantially higher and I don't think the school can reroute funds to out of state aid. BC makes sense b/c it is a private school located in one of the biggest cities in the Northeast. And what natural rivalries does the ACC as it stands now provide? They'd have to add Rutgers, Pitt, WVU, or Syracuse to provide natural rivalries. The only team in the ACC that had a rivalry with Penn State is Maryland whereas they have 3 rivalries in the B10, are about to add Nebraska who they had an old rivalry with. Travel would be the only benefit but Penn State isn't hurting for money and again their sports especially with hockey line up much better with the B10. And I haven't heard too many Penn State guys complain about not being able to go to games. After having the experience of going to the Big House or OSU once or twice, I would think going into opposing hostile crowds gets a bit old as I'm sure some who have gone to CH can attest to.

[formerdukeathlete]

Even with a mega conference, the B10 would probably keep its current standards and research base and go after schools like ND, Pitt, Rutgers, etc. And I don't see why kids in PA are more likely to go to Penn State makes it a huge issue. When dealing with most major state schools, I don't think there is a chance of those kids going to different state schools. Heck, with some of those rivalries I doubt they'd even want to go other places. Would an Auburn family allow their kid to go to Alabama or Tennessee? I'm sure if the kid really wanted to go, they would let him but not after some ribbing. How many kids from Columbus are going up to Wisconsin or the other way around?

And again, how is the ACC going to help its application numbers? How many Southerners want to come up North to a place with heated sidewalks in the middle of nowhere? And to boot, its a public university which mean it is funded with state dollars. Out of state tuition is substantially higher and I don't think the school can reroute funds to out of state aid. BC makes sense b/c it is a private school located in one of the biggest cities in the Northeast. And what natural rivalries does the ACC as it stands now provide? They'd have to add Rutgers, Pitt, WVU, or Syracuse to provide natural rivalries. The only team in the ACC that had a rivalry with Penn State is Maryland whereas they have 3 rivalries in the B10, are about to add Nebraska who they had an old rivalry with. Travel would be the only benefit but Penn State isn't hurting for money and again their sports especially with hockey line up much better with the B10. And I haven't heard too many Penn State guys complain about not being able to go to games. After having the experience of going to the Big House or OSU once or twice, I would think going into opposing hostile crowds gets a bit old as I'm sure some who have gone to CH can attest to.

Put it this way, were BC to have joined the SEC, folks I know and therefore I would assert that there would have been a different effect vis a vis Southern states applications.

Note what Donna Shalala said upon joining the ACC: http://dukechronicle.com/article/update-miami-va-tech-accept-invitations-acc

"We accept the invitation from the ACC with enthusiasm," Shalala told a horde of media Monday afternoon. "The ACC has built a remarkable conference based on equal treatment and higher academic and athletic expectations. We have both. This is a good move for the University. We look forward to joining them to build a strong academic conference to accompany their exceptional athletic conference."

Note what Father Leahy said about BC's reasons for joining the ACC: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v12/o17/qa.html

'Chronicle: What are the main reasons for BC to join the ACC?

Fr. Leahy: The decision to join the Atlantic Coast Conference is based on my judgment of what is in the best interest of Boston College.

Chronicle: Would you explain the benefits?

Fr. Leahy: First, from an academic standpoint, I believe that the ACC is a great fit for Boston College. It has five universities - Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Georgia Tech - that, like us, are ranked among the top 40 national universities, and it is a conference with a balanced mix of private and public institutions.

In addition, the ACC is in a part of the United States with attractive demographics, a great plus for our student recruiting efforts in future years.

Finally and very important to me, the ACC is committed to a program of academic cooperation and collaboration that encourages faculty and student exchanges as well as sharing library resources, something not done in the Big East.

Second, the ACC is a conference that has strength and stability. There are no concerns about its survival, in contrast to the Big East, which every few years has had to deal with questions about its viability. Consequently, membership in the ACC secures the future of our intercollegiate athletics program.

Third, the financial benefits of being in the ACC will help us support non-revenue sports at BC, especially for female athletes.'

If you think it is just exposure via media which is what contributed to BC's increased applications from the South, I would assert you may not be that familiar with the admission processes these days at elite, top 40 universities. Miami chose to leave the Big East, getting farther away from their traditional rotations among Eastern rivals, partly due to its aspirations academically, and it saw joining the ACC and being associated with on average more prestigious institutions as helpful in building its own academic reputation. And, since joining, its USNW ranking has risen significantly.

Penn State would benefit from the same phenomenon. Whether this completely countervails the benefits of the research opportunities of being a member of the Big Ten, I dont know. Penn State also operates a bit more like a private school (as does Pitt) than traditional state owned universities. It is state supported, but an indepedent unversity, and the percentage of its annual operating budget covered by state funding has decreased significantly over the last 10 years.

[ChillinDuke]

Penn State would benefit from the same phenomenon. Whether this completely countervails the benefits of the research opportunities of being a member of the Big Ten, I dont know. Penn State also operates a bit more like a private school (as does Pitt) than traditional state owned universities. It is state supported, but an indepedent unversity, and the percentage of its annual operating budget covered by state funding has decreased significantly over the last 10 years.

Cool. So in your view, Penn State's southern applicant pool may increase significantly were they to join the ACC.

So the next logical question is will they join the ACC? And DBR posters' consensus answer to this question has been emphatically "No."

So, in summary, for those keeping score, we are debating what will happen to another school's southern applicant pool when they don't change conferences.

Intriguing stuff. Carry on.

[Why do I even check this thread? :D]

[fan345678]

Yes, you pretty much explained what we we're saying. And I'd even take it a step further in the sense that BC benefitted more than say Clemson b/c they were a northern school that people in the south probably knew little about whereas down south whether your conference is the SEC, ACC or another, you would probably have heard of Clemson.

But that said, it isn't like these kids say, wow, those guys are in the same league as Duke and UNC-CH, they must be a top notch academic institution. And I think its immediate increase shows that it was just this exposure and BC's already great academics as opposed to the ACC raising them up.

ah, ok, I think I see what you meant

[sporthenry]

Fr. Leahy: First, from an academic standpoint, I believe that the ACC is a great fit for Boston College. It has five universities - Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Georgia Tech - that, like us, are ranked among the top 40 national universities, and it is a conference with a balanced mix of private and public institutions.

In addition, the ACC is in a part of the United States with attractive demographics, a great plus for our student recruiting efforts in future years.

Finally and very important to me, the ACC is committed to a program of academic cooperation and collaboration that encourages faculty and student exchanges as well as sharing library resources, something not done in the Big East.

Second, the ACC is a conference that has strength and stability. There are no concerns about its survival, in contrast to the Big East, which every few years has had to deal with questions about its viability. Consequently, membership in the ACC secures the future of our intercollegiate athletics program.

Third, the financial benefits of being in the ACC will help us support non-revenue sports at BC, especially for female athletes.'

If you think it is just exposure via media which is what contributed to BC's increased applications from the South, I would assert you may not be that familiar with the admission processes these days at elite, top 40 universities. Miami chose to leave the Big East, getting farther away from their traditional rotations among Eastern rivals, partly due to its aspirations academically, and it saw joining the ACC and being associated with on average more prestigious institutions as helpful in building its own academic reputation. And, since joining, its USNW ranking has risen significantly.

Penn State would benefit from the same phenomenon. Whether this completely countervails the benefits of the research opportunities of being a member of the Big Ten, I dont know. Penn State also operates a bit more like a private school (as does Pitt) than traditional state owned universities. It is state supported, but an indepedent unversity, and the percentage of its annual operating budget covered by state funding has decreased significantly over the last 10 years.

Well you are comparing apples to oranges. Again, the B10 is not the BE. Yes, the ACC is relatively stable but the B10 is much more stable. Nobody has said anything about anyone leaving the B10 save for one kid who wants some Lacross super conference. Secondly, I'm not sure the academics would necessarily be better if Penn State joins the ACC. I'm not sure what the ACC has done for BC academically speaking. There might be a few more research opportunities and it does get them away from being affiliated with the rest of the BE and it gets them more students from the South but its not like the ACC has some huge collaboration system like the B10. And again, the B10 was ranked best conference for graduate programs and undergraduate wise they aren't trailing too much ranking wise especially when you take into account the US N&WR kills them b/c of their size and acceptance rate.

And I think that I also said why Penn State would not necessarily benefit from a move b/c they are a public school unlike Miami or BC. Public and private schools act differently and again, they aren't going to view applicants from outside the state the same way inside the state. Hence why UNC and UVA had distinctly different admission rates for in and out of state. The out of state numbers are starting to rise a bit and like you say Penn State isn't the traditional state school but they would risk losing all funding if they were to start viewing in and out of state student similar which they would have to do to provide fair financial aid packages or else students could go to their state university or a private institution and receive a better fin. aid package. And that doesn't even mention a kid from the South going to the middle of nowhere in PA. It might get cold at BC but you have the opportunities Boston presents, at State College, unless you are going to be an undergraduate research wiz, they don't seem to offer much.

Financially speaking, Penn State has no troubles unless they get the golden ticket so to speak which I think the rest of the ACC would take huge issue with.

[uh_no]

it does get them away from being affiliated with the rest of the BE

You know those terrible schools like pittsburgh, syracuse, Notre Dame, and Georgetown...dragging the whole big east down into the trash heap

[sporthenry]

You know those terrible schools like pittsburgh, syracuse, Notre Dame, and Georgetown...dragging the whole big east down into the trash heap

I didn't say that so you can put words in my mouth if you'd like. But if I were to criticize Conference USA would you bring up Rice University as evidence that the conference has great academics. It is a condemnation of the conference as a whole and if you can't differentiate the difference than I don't know what to tell you. It isn't a knock on the best academic schools in the BE, its a knock that every ACC or B10 school is better than half the BE. Just using the US N&WR for these exercises, the lowest ranked schools in those conferences are 104 for the B10 for Nebraska and 111 for NC State. The BE has 7 schools in the top 111 with Gtown, ND, Uconn, Syracuse, Marquette, Rutgers, Pittsburgh. Then you have Depaul and Seton Hall at 136, St. Johns at 143, Cincy at 156, Louisville and WVU at 176, and USF at 183. Nova and Providence are regional universities but are 1-2 in the North.

So I don't think it is out of line to mention that hence why the fan provided a link where Miami and BC both mentioned the academics of the ACC.

[uh_no]

I didn't say that so you can put words in my mouth if you'd like. But if I were to criticize Conference USA would you bring up Rice University as evidence that the conference has great academics. It is a condemnation of the conference as a whole and if you can't differentiate the difference than I don't know what to tell you. It isn't a knock on the best academic schools in the BE, its a knock that every ACC or B10 school is better than half the BE. Just using the US N&WR for these exercises, the lowest ranked schools in those conferences are 104 for the B10 for Nebraska and 111 for NC State. The BE has 7 schools in the top 111 with Gtown, ND, Uconn, Syracuse, Marquette, Rutgers, Pittsburgh. Then you have Depaul and Seton Hall at 136, St. Johns at 143, Cincy at 156, Louisville and WVU at 176, and USF at 183. Nova and Providence are regional universities but are 1-2 in the North.

So I don't think it is out of line to mention that hence why the fan provided a link where Miami and BC both mentioned the academics of the ACC.

No, what's out of line is to assume being a member of the big east drags down one's academic stature when you and I both have provided several top notch institutions in the league who don't seem to be dragged down by the rest of the riff raff....

[sporthenry]

No, what's out of line is to assume being a member of the big east drags down one's academic stature when you and I both have provided several top notch institutions in the league who don't seem to be dragged down by the rest of the riff raff....

Perhaps not drag down but doesn't exactly accentuate the school's academics. This obviously doesn't apply to schools like Notre Dame or Duke b/c they are already their own brand but as one of the many variables, if you can stop being affiliated with WVU and instead be affiliated with Wake Forest or G. Tech, then everything else being equal, that makes sense. It also allows a school like BC to justify its decision to switch conferences to its teachers and faculty b/c they are joining a conference that does seem to care about academics.

[uh_no]

Perhaps not drag down but doesn't exactly accentuate the school's academics. This obviously doesn't apply to schools like Notre Dame or Duke b/c they are already their own brand but as one of the many variables, if you can stop being affiliated with WVU and instead be affiliated with Wake Forest or G. Tech, then everything else being equal, that makes sense. It also allows a school like BC to justify its decision to switch conferences to its teachers and faculty b/c they are joining a conference that does seem to care about academics.

They joined the ACC for the money, whether they told the teachers it was for "academics." As has been addressed ad nauseum here, people go to BC becuase its a great school in a great city....not because the ACC has other good schools.

[sporthenry]

They joined the ACC for the money, whether they told the teachers it was for "academics." As has been addressed ad nauseum here, people go to BC becuase its a great school in a great city....not because the ACC has other good schools.

Obviously money was the #1, but as the link the previous poster provided shows, these Presidents are also there to ensure that the academics stay strong b/c without academics, they have nothing. So that is why I said, all things being equal, the ACC is more attractive than the BE when it comes to academics.

Here are a few quotes from the President

'First, from an academic standpoint, I believe that the ACC is a great fit for Boston College. It has five universities - Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Georgia Tech - that, like us, are ranked among the top 40 national universities, and it is a conference with a balanced mix of private and public institutions.

Finally and very important to me, the ACC is committed to a program of academic cooperation and collaboration that encourages faculty and student exchanges as well as sharing library resources, something not done in the Big East.'

I agree that people don't go to BC b/c they see they are in the ACC conference but my point is that from all aspects, monetarily, academically, and stability wise, it made sense for BC to leave the BE. I don't think I made it sound as if that was the driving force behind the decision, just we were analyzing why academically Penn State would be crazy to leave the B10 all else being equal but with BC and Miami, I guess you could just call it icing on the cake.

[sagegrouse]

And if you want to look at rankings (which aren't perfect by any means) BC stood on its own academically before the ACC. In the 2005 rankings which are published in the Summer of 2004, BC was ranked tied for 37. Now they are tied for 31. A nice increase no doubt but hardly what some are making it out to be. And perhaps the increase is purely cosmetic in the sense they got more applications and better students from the South which increased selectivity? I have no doubt that joining the ACC over the Big East has helped with some collaboration but again, it isn't like they are in the Triangle so they can't really be in a true consortium where a kid could go 20 minutes to UNC-CH to take a class not offered at BC.

I would agree the increase in Southern applications show nothing about ACC affiliations and if anything, it would appear that it was a result of kids finding out more about BC from the South and realizing that BC was already a premier academic institution.

.


Who's saying that? In fact almost everyone here is saying that ACC affiliation increases exposure to kids in the south. The argument is that it is simple exposure, not an increased perception of BC's academic worth that is driving the increase in applications from the region.


Yes, you pretty much explained what we we're saying. And I'd even take it a step further in the sense that BC benefitted more than say Clemson b/c they were a northern school that people in the south probably knew little about whereas down south whether your conference is the SEC, ACC or another, you would probably have heard of Clemson.

But that said, it isn't like these kids say, wow, those guys are in the same league as Duke and UNC-CH, they must be a top notch academic institution. And I think its immediate increase shows that it was just this exposure and BC's already great academics as opposed to the ACC raising them up.

Good thing this isn't a poker game, because I looked up all the numbers about BC enrolments from ACC states. Here's a more detailed breakdown than I cited above:

Maryland -- 217 (2.3%)
Florida -- 290 (3.2%)
Virginia -- 109 (1.2%)

The entire ACC Deep South -- 100 (1.1%)

Total -- 7.8%

These numbers are 5-6 years AFTER BC joined the ACC. Even if the increase were as much as 50%, we are talking only about 3% more students from ACC states as before, and I believe the article said that the yield from the southern states was lower than elsewhere, so the enrolment difference is probably less than 3%.

Of course, the Carolinas are not exactly prime recruiting turf for BC. I remember Fr. Livelsburger, the Cadillac-driving pastor at Immaculate Conception in Durham, claiming back in the 1960s that North Carolina had the lowest percentage of Roman Catholics of any place on earth -- 1/2 of 1%. Outside of Charleston, Catholics were pretty scarce in SC too. I am sure the demographics have changed somewhat, but you get the point.

Now, the six states of the SEC (omitting the states shared with the ACC) have only 60 students out of 9,100 at BC -- or less than 1%.

In any event, there is not exactly a tidal wave of enthusiasm for Boston College in traditional ACC territory.

sagegrouse

[sporthenry]

Good thing this isn't a poker game, because I looked up all the numbers about BC enrolments from ACC states. Here's a more detailed breakdown than I cited above:

Maryland -- 217 (2.3%)
Florida -- 290 (3.2%)
Virginia -- 109 (1.2%)

The entire ACC Deep South -- 100 (1.1%)

Total -- 7.8%

These numbers are 5-6 years AFTER BC joined the ACC. Even if the increase were as much as 50%, we are talking only about 3% more students from ACC states as before, and I believe the article said that the yield from the southern states was lower than elsewhere, so the enrolment difference is probably less than 3%.

Of course, the Carolinas are not exactly prime recruiting turf for BC. I remember Fr. Livelsburger, the Cadillac-driving pastor at Immaculate Conception in Durham, claiming back in the 1960s that North Carolina had the lowest percentage of Roman Catholics of any place on earth -- 1/2 of 1%. Outside of Charleston, Catholics were pretty scarce in SC too. I am sure the demographics have changed somewhat, but you get the point.

Now, the six states of the SEC (omitting the states shared with the ACC) have only 60 students out of 9,100 at BC -- or less than 1%.

In any event, there is not exactly a tidal wave of enthusiasm for Boston College in traditional ACC territory.

sagegrouse

Actually, those comments were in response to someone saying that BC got a jump in applications b/c they were tied to the ACC as opposed to just being more recognized in the South. He brought up this link (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/25/boston_college_allure_spreads_southward/) and I think that both of us would agree that BC joining the ACC wasn't a huge effect in terms of applications from the South. We were just analyzing why the applications increase. Was it merely from exposure or was it b/c they were tied to Duke and UNC? So it seems you are playing 5 card draw while we are playing Hold'em if I can continue with your metaphor in that the arguments don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

[Indoor66]

Is this thread about what might actually happen, or about pipe dreams scribbled on the backs of bar napkins?

Careful, that napkin reference is getting awfully close to a match book cover (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=218099), where the Indoor Stadium was designed! You KNOW that it is close to my heart.

[sagegrouse]

Actually, those comments were in response to someone saying that BC got a jump in applications b/c they were tied to the ACC as opposed to just being more recognized in the South. He brought up this link (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/25/boston_college_allure_spreads_southward/) and I think that both of us would agree that BC joining the ACC wasn't a huge effect in terms of applications from the South. We were just analyzing why the applications increase. Was it merely from exposure or was it b/c they were tied to Duke and UNC? So it seems you are playing 5 card draw while we are playing Hold'em if I can continue with your metaphor in that the arguments don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

It was back to the origins of this topic, whether there was a surge in applications (and presumably enrolment) from other ACC states and the later comments on the reason for any surge. Fact is, the base enrolment from southern states is really low at BC and so that even a doubling of applications and enrolment doesn't amount to very much.

sagegrouse
'Is BC Headache Powder still being sold in the South? I remember commercials by Richard Petty way back when'

[devildeac]

It was back to the origins of this topic, whether there was a surge in applications (and presumably enrolment) from other ACC states and the later comments on the reason for any surge. Fact is, the base enrolment from southern states is really low at BC and so that even a doubling of applications and enrolment doesn't amount to very much.

sagegrouse
'Is BC Headache Powder still being sold in the South? I remember commercials by Richard Petty way back when'

For your reading pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Powder

[sporthenry]

It was back to the origins of this topic, whether there was a surge in applications (and presumably enrolment) from other ACC states and the later comments on the reason for any surge. Fact is, the base enrolment from southern states is really low at BC and so that even a doubling of applications and enrolment doesn't amount to very much.

Well I just took the article for face value and wasn't too concerned about the numbers as a whole. We were just talking about why it happened and me and Uh No said it had more to do with exposure than an affiliation with top academic schools. That said, I was just saying Penn State wouldn't really see an application increase from the South if they joined b/c it is a public school and other factors. The fact BC hasn't even seen a marked increase would just strengthen that position. So in some ways, you strengthened my argument. The poster who brought up the article that BC's applications and admissions from the South increased was formerdukeathlete so that would refute that article more than anything else.

[laxbluedevil]

We can speculate as outsiders about why they should want this or that, but Bottom Line is PSU has always wanted to be in an eastern ACC/Big East hybrid league, their admins like AD Paterno, presidents, trustees, alumni who all live in east, PA natives and residents who are fans, everyone!

We've already established Paterno's/my eastern atlantic league has PSU right in the middle, compared to the faraway B10/11/12 schools of which they are the outlier screwed most in travel. PSU is within driving distance of half of this new Atlantic League, while closest B10/11/12 OSU is 320 miles away and others much farther, so several easy road trips vs 0 or 1 long trip at most. Matters to their fans, athletes, recruits, relatives, everyone. Farthest B10 schools of which there are many like Neb, Minn, also much farther than FSU or GT.

Also, ACC has 6 top 40 US News schools to B10/11/12's two. PSU stands out and is compelling for applicants from east coast because its the best in football seating 108000 and partying and size and so appeals to different kinds of kids, and is almost perfect safey school for private college or even uva, unc applicants, so applications from eastern kids would rise significantly along with selectivity, rankings. B10 and CIC redistributes research money like conferences like ACC redistribute TV money from say UNC to Wake Forest, schools like Michigan and PSU are likely getting far LESS than what they individually bring in for both research and TV/league money. Like someone said, if it was such a great idea, everybody would be doing it yet vast majority aren't and don't plan to. Natural recruiting region for PSU, BOSTON COLLEGE, Syracuse, UConn, UMD, athletes and students is midatlantic and northeast NOT the south, and ACC schools like Duke would hugely benefit from doubling exposure by creating new TV markets in the north with the most money and top students. Everyone agrees PSU and others benefit from a new Atlantic League in exposure, academics, overall sports, and travel, only differing in how much.

Also hugely benefits their hoops, lax, overall sports, and revenue. Duke, UNC, UVA, FSU, in top 9 of NACDA directors cup all sports standings, compared to just 1 B10 school. PSU is 13th and used to be top 5 in the first ranking in '94 while playing traditional eastern rivals, before B10 ruined PSU athletics. Does everyone realize what the Big Ten Network is? It only shows the worst football games that aren't on anywhere else, like Northwestern vs SE Arkansas Tech. What it DOES specialize in is nonrevenue sports, and B10/11/12 sucks at those compared to ACC or a new eastern league, except curling? And COLLEGE hockey? Even NHL struggles to be on OLN or Versus or whatever they're reduced to. PSU doesn't even HAVE a div.I hockey program but all of a sudden whenever they finally get one years from now they're going to dominate B10 which has 25 national titles?? Not in this lifetime, if even their dominant football program was laid low, no way PSU hockey could avoid the B10 cellar every year, not the case in eastern Atlantic League, despite BC's nat titles. Eastern Atlantic League is much better and dominant in mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, cross country, track, swimming, golf, field hockey, list goes on and on, dominating the EASTERN sports PSU plays. So between that and dominating half the US population and media and money and donors and applicants splitting it only 8-10 ways, instead of splitting a clearly poorer and declining in every way midwest 12-16 ways, it's a no brainer for PSU all around.

[laxbluedevil]

The following article says PSU has always hated B10 and vice versa, gets nothing academically or athletically from midwestern exposure and loses a lot from less eastern exposure. Also says PSU football won national titles by easy scheduling in 70s and 80s (just like FSU in 90s!) before being knocked out of title contention in B10. So new eastern Atlantic League would be perfect in all ways for PSU, couldn't possibly be any better.

http://bigtenbugle.typepad.com/bigten_bugle/2005/10/culture_warshap.html

"Culture Wars--Happy Valley Vs. The Big Ten

A crisis on the border exists. The new immigrants are not assimiliating peacefully into the native culture, and a tempest is brewing. No, we're not down on the Mexican border with the Minutemen. Rather, the crisis exists on the mythical border Penn State crossed when it emigrated to the Big Ten in 1993. After Saturday, a full-fledged rebellion is brewing...

Talking to Penn State fans, one realizes they can recite the Litany of Big Ten Woe, with the same rhythmic fervor that Catholics recite the Litany of the Sacred Heart. ..

At the bottom of Penn State's Litany of Woe is the simple question--has the change to the Big Ten been beneficial for them? The mindset of Lion Nation appears to be decidedly "no". Are they right?
The negatives of Penn State's twelve-year affiliation are legitimate. When the Lions were added to the conference, they brought added exposure for the conference in eastern markets... Clearly, this was a one-sided trade in favor of the Big Ten. .."

[laxbluedevil]

http://blog.pennlive.com/pasports/2011/02/nittany_nation_big_ten.html


"Penn State comments: Nittany Nation still doesn't feel part of Big Ten family
Published: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 11:30 AM...

much of the Penn State nation has never felt that they are "part of the family"...

Jones' poll also shows more loyalty toward Atlantic 10 and Big East teams than to the Big Ten."


What's more, of the 33 comments, all but 2 say PSU is eastern and should be in an eastern league and reveal that not only does PSU not consider itself midwestern or part of B10/11/12 but the B10/11/12 screws over PSU. They're still going on about '94 when midwestern writers overwhelmingly supported Nebraska for a national title while ruining the chances of their own so-called fellow conference member PSU (of course these same writers overwhelmingly supported Michigan and OSU's nat titles)! B10 also cost PSU another shot at a national title with refs giving Michigan (the UNC of the B10 to PSU's Maryland!) a phantom extra play in 2005 to ruin PSU's undefeated season. List goes on, bias is clear, just like with ACC and UNC, vs say Clemson's extra probation courtesy of Swofford and ACC ADs and constant screw jobs from refs in Chapel Hill, etc. So the disdain goes both ways, B10 hates PSU and PSU hates B10. Only a couple comments show any kind of support whatsoever towards the Big 10 and even those only talk about how bad the BIG EAST is by comparison, which is irrelevant to a NEW PERFECT eastern league. Obviously, PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, would be far superior in every way, and a perfect fit for 100% of their fans and employees, as if Paterno and PSU fans themselves personally designed it, and just like the eastern all sports league Paterno DID design as PSU's AD.

[Chicago 1995]

We can speculate as outsiders about why they should want this or that, but Bottom Line is PSU has always wanted to be in an eastern ACC/Big East hybrid league, their admins like AD Paterno, presidents, trustees, alumni who all live in east, PA natives and residents who are fans, everyone!

We've already established Paterno's/my eastern atlantic league has PSU right in the middle, compared to the faraway B10/11/12 schools of which they are the outlier screwed most in travel. PSU is within driving distance of half of this new Atlantic League, while closest B10/11/12 OSU is 320 miles away and others much farther, so several easy road trips vs 0 or 1 long trip at most. Matters to their fans, athletes, recruits, relatives, everyone. Farthest B10 schools of which there are many like Neb, Minn, also much farther than FSU or GT.

Also, ACC has 6 top 40 US News schools to B10/11/12's two. PSU stands out and is compelling for applicants from east coast because its the best in football seating 108000 and partying and size and so appeals to different kinds of kids, and is almost perfect safey school for private college or even uva, unc applicants, so applications from eastern kids would rise significantly along with selectivity, rankings. B10 and CIC redistributes research money like conferences like ACC redistribute TV money from say UNC to Wake Forest, schools like Michigan and PSU are likely getting far LESS than what they individually bring in for both research and TV/league money. Like someone said, if it was such a great idea, everybody would be doing it yet vast majority aren't and don't plan to. Natural recruiting region for PSU, BOSTON COLLEGE, Syracuse, UConn, UMD, athletes and students is midatlantic and northeast NOT the south, and ACC schools like Duke would hugely benefit from doubling exposure by creating new TV markets in the north with the most money and top students. Everyone agrees PSU and others benefit from a new Atlantic League in exposure, academics, overall sports, and travel, only differing in how much.

Also hugely benefits their hoops, lax, overall sports, and revenue. Duke, UNC, UVA, FSU, in top 9 of NACDA directors cup all sports standings, compared to just 1 B10 school. PSU is 13th and used to be top 5 in the first ranking in '94 while playing traditional eastern rivals, before B10 ruined PSU athletics. Does everyone realize what the Big Ten Network is? It only shows the worst football games that aren't on anywhere else, like Northwestern vs SE Arkansas Tech. What it DOES specialize in is nonrevenue sports, and B10/11/12 sucks at those compared to ACC or a new eastern league, except curling? And COLLEGE hockey? Even NHL struggles to be on OLN or Versus or whatever they're reduced to. PSU doesn't even HAVE a div.I hockey program but all of a sudden whenever they finally get one years from now they're going to dominate B10 which has 25 national titles?? Not in this lifetime, if even their dominant football program was laid low, no way PSU hockey could avoid the B10 cellar every year, not the case in eastern Atlantic League, despite BC's nat titles. Eastern Atlantic League is much better and dominant in mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, cross country, track, swimming, golf, field hockey, list goes on and on, dominating the EASTERN sports PSU plays. So between that and dominating half the US population and media and money and donors and applicants splitting it only 8-10 ways, instead of splitting a clearly poorer and declining in every way midwest 12-16 ways, it's a no brainer for PSU all around.



(1) Do you have any idea how much money the Big 10 generates for Penn State?

A ton.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/11533/big-ten-network-officially-a-cash-cow

http://www.examiner.com/penn-state-nittany-lions-football-in-philadelphia/penn-state-records-highest-football-revenue-big-ten

You'll note that despite the travel expenses that you think would drive a move by Penn State to your Atlantic league, they had the most profitable atheltic department in the Big 10.

(2) Do you have any idea what the primary driver of that revenue source is?

It's football, something your proposed Atlantic League isn't going to generate much television interest in. Nor is it going to likely have a conference championship game, which will not a sell out, is very important to television contracts and the revenue it generates.

Your idea might have made sense in 1980. Maybe even in 1990.

In 2011? It's a pipe dream with zero chance of happening. The football in the conference is too weak to generate revenue, and even if I'm drasticallly underrating the appeal of your conference's football, Penn State is not going to take the risk of moving from Big Ten membership that is wildly profitable for them and likely to get MORE profitable if the Big Ten expands to 16 to a conference where revenues would be a gigantic question mark.

I know you are going to talk past this post, and and repeat what you've said, but Penn State's not leaving the Big Ten. They're there to stay thanks to the $$$ the conference generates.

As with many of your other posts, simply restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.


If we're going to talk about a New ACC, we need to realize that:

(1) as much as purists don't like it, we're likely headed to four 64 team conferences. With A&M headed to the SEC, someone is going to be that 14th team, and that someone already has a conference affiliation. Either it's going to be Mizzou and the Big XII is going to wither and die or it's going to be an ACC member, and the ACC will need to respond to move back to 12. Either way, the chain reaction to 16 team conferences is happening.

(2) Teams from the Big 10 and SEC and Pac 10 aren't leaving those conferences. That leaves the 9 remaining members of the Big XII (Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, Mizzou Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas), the 12 Big East ACC (BC, Maryland, UVA, Va Tech, Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and FSU) and the football playing members of the Big East (TCU, WVA, Louisville, USF, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Cincy and Rutgers) and Notre Dame to fill 27 spots: 3 more SEC, 4 Big Ten, 4 Pac 10 and 16 in a 4th 16 team conference.

(3) Duke won't join the Pac 10 for reasons of geography. They won't join the SEC for a host of reasons. That means Duke's long-term future, assuming its in a conference is either with the Big 10 or in a league that's comprised of the left overs of the Big XII, Big East and ACC. I leave it to those who are interested to figure out which of those two is better for Duke. I'm not sure, and even 24 hours ago, I don't know that I would have said this, but if the Big 10 calls, we probably ought to think long and hard about it.

[jimsumner]

(1) Do you have any idea how much money the Big 10 generates for Penn State?

A ton.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/11533/big-ten-network-officially-a-cash-cow

http://www.examiner.com/penn-state-nittany-lions-football-in-philadelphia/penn-state-records-highest-football-revenue-big-ten


I(1) as much as purists don't like it, we're likely headed to four 64 team conferences.

Scheduling is going to be a bear in those 64 team conferences. :)

[laxbluedevil]

Conference moves are about TELEVISION, not just football, why? Plus, B10 has won 1.5 national titles in 43 years! Because a major source of football revenue is ticket sales and donations and that has zero to do with conference revenues. Conference revenues are all about TV ONLY, and northeast and midatlantic has tons of viewers. Why else would ESPN offer Big East $1.4 billion, and Big East is still holding out for $20 million per year per school when they have a TON of schools? Big East is all about hoops, they suck at football with ZERO ranked teams, and suck at overall sports too. PAC 10 just got the richest TV deal ever and they suck at football too, just 2 ranked teams, and only one unranked traditional power out of 12 schools!

If 1/12 of Big Ten Network generates a ton of revenue showing bad overall sports like curling to half empty neighborhoods in Detroit and a midwest losing population and money, what would 1/10 or 1/8 of an Atlantic League Network showing the best overall sports in America to half the US population and media and money generate?

And we all know hoops plays far more games then football and all those games would be televised on ALN. Along with all those other sports A League would be best at, mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, cross country, track, swimming, golf, field hockey, list goes on and on, dominating the EASTERN sports PSU plays.

As for football, PSU was great in 94 the year after they joined the Big 10 and has sucked since, never even playing for a national title or winning an outright B10 title, and now they added Nebraska which won 3 titles in the 90s alone! PSU won national titles by easy scheduling as an independent, so a league with PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, would be perfect for them. That league would easily have an automatic BCS bid (check out Big East with automatic BCS bid and ZERO ranked teams!), but would not be so dominant that it would wreck PSU and FSU's national title hopes the way Big 10/11/12 or ACC 12 has done, or keep Duke from bowls. So teams can still schedule OSU or Stanford or other tough games and still play for a national title or bowl. And of course, 10 teams can all play each other, only way to determine a true league champ, as is home and home in hoops. That's ideal, in every way, for everyone.

Big 10 has sucked in football lately and it's only going getting worse. Reason is simple and the same reason Notre Dame has sucked for decades, midwest can't compete with the "speed states" of the south, which the Atlantic League would have a firm presence in. And getting even worse with midwest losing population and money to the south. Just check out the slow motion antiquated ways B10 plays football or Wisconsin or Mich State or any B10 team plays hoops, they can't play exciting modern football or hoops because B10 can't get the athletes! 3 yards and a cloud of dust equals 1.5 titles in 43 years and getting worse!

PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, this is a perfect Atlantic League in every way. Plus with over half the ACC represented, no exit fees needed, just all get together and vote to have no exit fees and dissolve the ACC! VT can go to SEC or Big East. Big East would be far better adding Miami, Clemson, NCSU, Wake Forest, VT, and they can have an allsports only conference with Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, etc. Big East basketball only schools would form Catholic league across northeast and midwest. Perfect, fair, nice, clean, organized, appropriate competition among similar schools, the best for everyone.

[jimsumner]

The counter-argument to the basketball-matters-as-much-as-football school of thought is the recent almost collapse of the Big 12 in which hoops icon Kansas was regarded as almost completely irrelevant. Maybe that had as much to do with TV sets in their local market but it still was awfully sobering.

[Chicago 1995]

If 1/12 of Big Ten Network generates a ton of revenue showing bad overall sports like curling to half empty neighborhoods in Detroit and a midwest losing population and money, what would 1/10 or 1/8 of an Atlantic League Network showing the best overall sports in America to half the US population and media and money generate?

Not as much. Not by a long shot.

Football drives the TV deals. With a mediocre football lineup and no conference championship game, your Atlantic conference wouldn't draw much in terms of a television contract.

I think the Big Ten and Pac 12 have really strong arguments that your Atlantic conference wouldn't be the best atheltic conference in America. Frankly, I don't think it's better than the SEC either. It's a heck of a basketball conference. Football's a distant 4th to the Big 12, Pac 10 and SEC. Baseball? Behind the SEC and Pac 12. Soccer? Not bad. Lax is the one conference your conference is clearly the best at, but lax doesn't move the needle yet, and has a ways to go before it moves the needle. Further, it's never going to be anything other than a distant third to football and basketball. It won't drive revenue. It won't close a sizeable gap with the Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC.

Nevermind the fact that Penn State is not leaving the Big Ten for a risk like this.

The point remains that if there is a new ACC, it will be comprised of current ACC, Big East and Big XII members, and maybe, just maybe, Notre Dame, and it can't be a 10 team conference. If the dominoes are falling that the SEC or the Pac 10 move to 16 team conferences, then the new ACC will need to be as well.

And the repeated shots at the Midwest are pretty unnecessary and also show a lack of understanding of the draw of the Big 10 Network. Even with the economic problems in the Old Rust Belt, enrollments aren't down at Big Ten Schools. More importantly, Big Ten Schools have massive alumni bases that are all over the country. The primary demand for the BTN isn't the laid off factory worker in Detroit. It's the Illinois alumni base in Seattle and Dallas. The Indiana base in NYC. Michigan in LA. That's not going away. It's not changing. That national base, not the Lincoln TV market, was the important reason for Nebraska's inclusion in the Big Ten. The Nebraska Radio Network has affiliates in Phoenix. Phoenix! The fan base and alumni base is huge and national. Detroit can die and it will have very little impact on the Big Ten Network and its massive revenue stream. The rest of the conference, even with Illinois slowly declining population, is doing fine and isn't going anyplace.

[laxbluedevil]

PAC 12 is bad at football with 2 ranked teams and only one tarnished traditional power, and terrible at basketball with zero ranked teams recently, yet they just signed the most lucrative TV deal ever. PAC 12 is good at overall sports and dominate their entire coast, but Utah and Colorado is nowhere near the Pacific. Big East is terrible at football with zero ranked teams and good at only hoops and TV markets in northeast, yet ESPN offered them $1.4 billion and they're holding out for $20 million per school like PAC 12. Atlantic League would be much better in every way, with just 10 schools playing each other every year in every sport and home and home in hoops, much better sports, and dominating the east with several times the population. Big Ten Network is incredibly boring, all they do is show coaches shows and a few bad football games no other even cable network wants to touch, and probably 24/7 curling when the short football season is over. Atlantic League Network would be the most lucrative and interesting, showing games people want to see like the best mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, baseball, softball, volleyball, rowing, swimming, track, cross country, fencing, football, etc.

These proposed 16 team conferences are a joke, Texas in the ACC or PAC 12 or B10/11/12? Kansas in the Big East? Colorado and Nebraska should have stayed B12. All of this is about one upmanship in football strength and that's it, period. It's certainly not about TV money, see PAC 12 or Big East for proof of that. And football is the one thing a league should NOT want to be the best at, ask FSU or Penn State which won national titles with easy scheduling and has regressed in the ACC 12 or B10/11 even before they added Nebraska with its 3 recent national titles. Too many good football programs beat each other up and prevent national titles. That's why B10 has only 1.5 national titles in the last 43 years. Big 12's 4.5 national football titles since 1994 is second only to SEC's 8, nobody else is close, and yet B12 is getting picked apart because they're not good at TV markets or academics or overall sports like Atlantic League or to a FAR Lesser extent PAC 12 is.

Atlantic League with UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, BC, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, is the ideal situation for all those schools, and the rest of the NCAA too. It would restore sanity, B10 should go back to original ten, B12 back to 12, SEC 12, PAC 10 to 10. VT, NCSU, Wake, Clemson, join allsports Big East with WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, maybe Memphis and ECU. Big East's 8 basketball only schools are all catholic and should form their own league. It would keep the NCAA from being replaced in all sports by some money oriented selfish group of 16 team BCS conferences that get rid of all rules and don't care if agents pay players, etc., which would obviously hurt schools like Duke, Penn State, BC, UVA, and others that do things the right way.

[ACCBBallFan]

(1) Do you have any idea how much money the Big 10 generates for Penn State?

A ton.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/11533/big-ten-network-officially-a-cash-cow

http://www.examiner.com/penn-state-nittany-lions-football-in-philadelphia/penn-state-records-highest-football-revenue-big-ten

You'll note that despite the travel expenses that you think would drive a move by Penn State to your Atlantic league, they had the most profitable atheltic department in the Big 10.

(2) Do you have any idea what the primary driver of that revenue source is?

It's football, something your proposed Atlantic League isn't going to generate much television interest in. Nor is it going to likely have a conference championship game, which will not a sell out, is very important to television contracts and the revenue it generates.

Your idea might have made sense in 1980. Maybe even in 1990.

In 2011? It's a pipe dream with zero chance of happening. The football in the conference is too weak to generate revenue, and even if I'm drasticallly underrating the appeal of your conference's football, Penn State is not going to take the risk of moving from Big Ten membership that is wildly profitable for them and likely to get MORE profitable if the Big Ten expands to 16 to a conference where revenues would be a gigantic question mark.

I know you are going to talk past this post, and and repeat what you've said, but Penn State's not leaving the Big Ten. They're there to stay thanks to the $$$ the conference generates.

As with many of your other posts, simply restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.


If we're going to talk about a New ACC, we need to realize that:

(1) as much as purists don't like it, we're likely headed to four 64 team conferences. With A&M headed to the SEC, someone is going to be that 14th team, and that someone already has a conference affiliation. Either it's going to be Mizzou and the Big XII is going to wither and die or it's going to be an ACC member, and the ACC will need to respond to move back to 12. Either way, the chain reaction to 16 team conferences is happening.

(2) Teams from the Big 10 and SEC and Pac 10 aren't leaving those conferences. That leaves the 9 remaining members of the Big XII (Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, Mizzou Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas), the 12 Big East ACC (BC, Maryland, UVA, Va Tech, Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and FSU) and the football playing members of the Big East (TCU, WVA, Louisville, USF, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Cincy and Rutgers) and Notre Dame to fill 27 spots: 3 more SEC, 4 Big Ten, 4 Pac 10 and 16 in a 4th 16 team conference.

(3) Duke won't join the Pac 10 for reasons of geography. They won't join the SEC for a host of reasons. That means Duke's long-term future, assuming its in a conference is either with the Big 10 or in a league that's comprised of the left overs of the Big XII, Big East and ACC. I leave it to those who are interested to figure out which of those two is better for Duke. I'm not sure, and even 24 hours ago, I don't know that I would have said this, but if the Big 10 calls, we probably ought to think long and hard about it.
P12 claims to be content at that number.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6949738/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-expanding-pac-12

SEC at 13 is a little odd as is B12 @9 but Arkansas per ESPN has refused B12- overture to cross over to get them to 10 and SEC to 12, which may have brought everything to equilibrium.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6940972/school-was-approached-big-12

Still B12(9) if it retains Okl, Okl St, Baylor, MO and Texas is in a more powerful position to be competitive with SEC13, B10(12) and P12 in football than ACC or BE or a merged ACC/BE who combined currently ranked teams are VA Tech, FSU and West VA, plus ghost of Miami.

If B12- can hold it together, only need to add one team to at least get to 10 (instead of Arkansas who refused) but would obviously prefer a way to get back to 12.

Too late to add TCU that jumped to BE who is also odd at 9 football and 17 Babll.

One approach would be for B12- to go after VA Tech, FSU and West VA to get to 12, or one of them to get to 10 for moment. If West VA accepted B12, BE would be back at 8 and 16 and ACC might have to replace 1-2 teams to stay at 12, or settle for 10.

SEC might be tempted to do the same to get to 14, or perhaps NC State to enter the NC market.

ACC may have a problem getting replacements as movements back and forth between ACC and BE would likely cancel each other out.

IMO neither ACC nor BE has as legitimate a chance to get to 16 in football as B12(9) has to survive, though many people are expecting the latter to be first to fall, or just ignore ACC and BE as irrelevant in football.

Best ACC can hope for is to stay in tact at 12 and BE will struggle to get to 12, and hope to retain everybody and add one to get to 10 in Football and 18 in basketball (perhaps Temple who is A10 in basketball and MAC in football).

All of this is personal opinion. So no link other than P12 and Arkansas links.

Not that it would stop the greed, but the other 3 football conferences might benefit more by there being 4 powerful football conferences with B12(9) rather than 3 jumbo ones.

I saw some intersting conjectiure on a NW board that Notre Dame and Texas are in dicsussions about joining B10(12) in 2014 if Texas does not get its prefereance for B12 to stay in tact..

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=162506546&Page=8

[Scorp4me]

It would keep the NCAA from being replaced in all sports by some money oriented selfish group of 16 team BCS conferences that get rid of all rules and don't care if agents pay players, etc., which would obviously hurt schools like Duke, Penn State, BC, UVA, and others that do things the right way.

I couldn't agree more laxbluedevil. Few people are thinking about the ramifications of these changes. Sure it'll work for a few years, but it'll spell much bigger changes than just conference realignment.

That being said I find it amusing that most feel the ACC will be left with the leftovers. If we're forced to 16 I say take from the best, screw this getting the leftovers. I know people like to talk about how good the SEC is, but take 4 teams from there and add them to the ACC and all of the sudden the roles are reversed. The ACC is in a much stronger position than alot of conferences and most people realize. I'm still hoping sanity is restored. It looks like it may, especially with the ACC and the Pac-12 both saying thanks but no thanks. Heck even the SEC doesn't seem to really want A&M. The Big East has it's issues, the Big 12 has it's issues, but hopefully they can be worked out without ruining it for everyone else. Just my thoughts.

[wilko]

I couldn't agree more laxbluedevil. Few people are thinking about the ramifications of these changes. Sure it'll work for a few years, but it'll spell much bigger changes than just conference realignment.

That being said I find it amusing that most feel the ACC will be left with the leftovers. If we're forced to 16 I say take from the best, screw this getting the leftovers. I know people like to talk about how good the SEC is, but take 4 teams from there and add them to the ACC and all of the sudden the roles are reversed. The ACC is in a much stronger position than alot of conferences and most people realize. I'm still hoping sanity is restored. It looks like it may, especially with the ACC and the Pac-12 both saying thanks but no thanks. Heck even the SEC doesn't seem to really want A&M. The Big East has it's issues, the Big 12 has it's issues, but hopefully they can be worked out without ruining it for everyone else. Just my thoughts.

We lure in ND no one will be singing about the ACC's demise.
I'd be kinda surprised if Swofford hasn't made a call to Kevin White to pick his brain on how things work over there, to better understand and navigate the landscape.

[Mike Corey]

I suspect that when the dust settles, Maryland will be a member of the Big 10.

[devildeac]

I suspect that when the dust settles, Maryland will be a member of the Big 10.

What? And give up their rivalry and excuses for rioting after they play us, win or lose? (My laptop at work refuses to enter any of these hideous new smilies so I roll my eyes at you.)

[laxbluedevil]

Atlantic League, 10: BC, UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU. The A League would dominate college sports and half the population and media and money, at least doubling PAC 12's recent record network deals at $40M per school per year, and with Atlantic League Network at least doubling Big Ten Network's payouts at another $20M per school per year, making more than 10 times as much per school as ACC pays out now.

ACC right now is a joke. Unbalanced unfair football divisions with Coastal crushing Atlantic, and crushing Duke football and even Miami and everyone other than VT. Duke has a cross division football rivalry with Wake losing to them 10+ straight years, so Duke plays NCSU every 2 or 3 years?? Scheduling home and home in hoops, and playing everyone every year in football is the only way to determine true league champs, and preserve real conference rivalries, in regions that make sense.

Miami won football national titles in Big East and nothing in ACC. VT only played for a national title in Big East. Clemson just like South Carolina wants to get away from the political dominance of the NC schools and away from corrupt Chapel Hill refs and John "Clemson deserves the death penalty but UNC is squeaky clean" Swofford. NCSU wants to get away from the shadow of UNC and Duke at least twice as much as Texas A&M wants to get away from Texas. Wake wants to solidify membership in and be the academic leader of a BCS league just like Vandy or Duke or Northwestern or Stanford.


5 ACC and 6 Big East football schools would add Memphis to make 12. 2 Big East divisions perfectly balanced in both football and basketball:

Big East South: Miami, South Florida, Clemson, NCSU, Memphis, Wake

Big East North: VT, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers


8 former Big East basketball schools are all catholic: Depaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, Notre Dame (could replace ND if poached by Big 10 with St Louis if needed)


Big 10: should go back to original 10, or replace PSU with Notre Dame and rename itself Big 12

Big 12: should go back to 12, or rename itself Big 10

PAC 10: should go back to 10, or stay at PAC 12

[-bdbd]

I hate to bring things back to the here and now reality of current conference activities, but....

With Texas A&M apparently about to join the SEC, most in the media seem to think that the SEC will soon try to add a 14th. One of the schools frequently mentioned - the school most often mentioned? - is Va Tech. That makes sense on several levels for the SEC, since VPI is newest to the ACC and probbably doesn't have quite the loyalty built up of some longer-term members, and the academics and football emphasis all fit for a move to the SEC. (It also, arguably, gains for the SEC a chunk of the DC/mid-Atlantic media market.) BTW, I see them also interested in FSU for the strong football and geographic fit, maybe as a fallback after they go after (long shot) Texas and then VPI? Any other ideas on the SEC's ranking of targets? (TX, VPI, FSU, Clemson...)

So, if VPI were to leave I think it is pretty obvious the ACC tries to replace them within a year or two (need 12 to qualify for the championship game in FB). Who is the most likely addition?? ND would be awesome, but I just ses them as too fiercely independent, esp for football - and a poor geographic fit for the non-revenue sports. So, who's next? We went after Syracuse to some extent during the last expansion. They seem an obvious candidate. UCONN and Rutgers bring in some of the NY TV market. I have heard of Pitt in the media as a good fit academically and adding PA TV markets (and I just don't see the preferred PSU leaving the Big-10 for the ACC). Similarly, I don't see WVU (a good geographic fit) or ECU adding much value from the ACC's perspective.

Are there any other realistic candidates if the ACC just seeks to add one for the time being? Looking for a prioritized list of the top ACC targets. Mine: ND, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, UCONN, a FL school (UF, or Central FL or USF), Vanderbilt...

[Fletch]

Atlantic League, 10: BC, UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU. The A League would dominate college sports and half the population and media and money, at least doubling PAC 12's recent record network deals at $40M per school per year, and with Atlantic League Network at least doubling Big Ten Network's payouts at another $20M per school per year, making more than 10 times as much per school as ACC pays out now.

ACC right now is a joke. Unbalanced unfair football divisions with Coastal crushing Atlantic, and crushing Duke football and even Miami and everyone other than VT. Duke has a cross division football rivalry with Wake losing to them 10+ straight years, so Duke plays NCSU every 2 or 3 years?? Scheduling home and home in hoops, and playing everyone every year in football is the only way to determine true league champs, and preserve real conference rivalries, in regions that make sense.

Miami won football national titles in Big East and nothing in ACC. VT only played for a national title in Big East. Clemson just like South Carolina wants to get away from the political dominance of the NC schools and away from corrupt Chapel Hill refs and John "Clemson deserves the death penalty but UNC is squeaky clean" Swofford. NCSU wants to get away from the shadow of UNC and Duke at least twice as much as Texas A&M wants to get away from Texas. Wake wants to solidify membership in and be the academic leader of a BCS league just like Vandy or Duke or Northwestern or Stanford.


5 ACC and 6 Big East football schools would add Memphis to make 12. 2 Big East divisions perfectly balanced in both football and basketball:

Big East South: Miami, South Florida, Clemson, NCSU, Memphis, Wake

Big East North: VT, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers


8 former Big East basketball schools are all catholic: Depaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, Notre Dame (could replace ND if poached by Big 10 with St Louis if needed)


Big 10: should go back to original 10, or replace PSU with Notre Dame and rename itself Big 12

Big 12: should go back to 12, or rename itself Big 10

PAC 10: should go back to 10, or stay at PAC 12


Some State fans want to leave the ACC, but there is ZERO evidence that anyone in the NCSU administration shares this desire.

[Scorp4me]

Not to mention it's not NCSU's decision soley to make. A wonderful aspect of being a part of the North Carolina State College System.

It would definitely suck if the SEC took Texas...since that is why A&M left for the SEC. Although I'm still not convinced the SEC actually wants A&M. They certainly aren't making it easy for them.

And while I know Va Tech has to say they aren't interested, I tend to believe them. They seemed to have done that as a proactive measure to let people know they weren't going anywhere. Not that's the kind of proactive thinking I like!

[uh_no]

Not to mention it's not NCSU's decision soley to make. A wonderful aspect of being a part of the North Carolina State College System.

It would definitely suck if the SEC took Texas...since that is why A&M left for the SEC. Although I'm still not convinced the SEC actually wants A&M. They certainly aren't making it easy for them.

And while I know Va Tech has to say they aren't interested, I tend to believe them. They seemed to have done that as a proactive measure to let people know they weren't going anywhere. Not that's the kind of proactive thinking I like!

Wait....the SEC offered them an invitation....they just don't want to get sued.....I'm not sure CYA implies that they don't want A&M or are making hard for them

[Scorp4me]

Wait....the SEC offered them an invitation....they just don't want to get sued.....I'm not sure CYA implies that they don't want A&M or are making hard for them

A&M sought them out not the other way around. And it's my understanding the release is an unusual requirement
. Sounds like a reluctant acceptance to me.

But I'm sure one's perspective is different based on their feelings towards the 16 team conferences.

[uh_no]

A&M sought them out not the other way around. And it's my understanding the release is an unusual requirement
. Sounds like a reluctant acceptance to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-remains-hopeful-sec-will-add-texas-aandm/2011/09/12/gIQAWnymNK_story.html

everthing anyone related to the SEC says seems to indicate the lawsuit stuff would go away so they could let A&M in without getting sued....the SEC can get anyone they want, so they have absolutely 0 reason to "reluctantly accept" someone

[blazindw]

I believe that I saw something on the ESPN ticker back when the A&M-to-SEC story first broke that the 14th team was being reported as down to Mizzou or WVU. WVU would be an interesting choice, given their culture may be more SEC-like than others like Mizzou, but is based north enough that snow comes into play most Octobers and Novembers.

I'm not so sure that V.Tech up and leaves if the SEC came to them. They may have some fight from the state legislature who fought hard through UVa to get them invited to the ACC. It is a possibility though, but for some reason, I think the SEC looks elsewhere before looking at the ACC.

[A-Tex Devil]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-remains-hopeful-sec-will-add-texas-aandm/2011/09/12/gIQAWnymNK_story.html

everthing anyone related to the SEC says seems to indicate the lawsuit stuff would go away so they could let A&M in without getting sued....the SEC can get anyone they want, so they have absolutely 0 reason to "reluctantly accept" someone

The SEC is playing it ultra-conservative, but they'll eventually let A&M in and Baylor won't sign a release unless OU commits to the Big XII. I have still not heard a single good reason why Baylor should sign a release, but somehow they are getting vilified. The Big Ten and Pac 10 didn't require it when they raided the Big XII and the ACC didn't when it went after the Big East.

I hope Baylor doesn't sign the release out of principal. Again, why should they? They have no idea what has been going on behind the scenes. MIke Slive may have been hitting the strip clubs with R. Bowen Loftin for the past year planning all of this. While highly doubtful, the Bears are in no position to waive anything and they shouldn't.

A&M needs to point their ire at the SEC for soft-footing it. Not Baylor - who is being asked to do something no school has ever been asked to do before.

[-bdbd]

I believe that I saw something on the ESPN ticker back when the A&M-to-SEC story first broke that the 14th team was being reported as down to Mizzou or WVU. WVU would be an interesting choice, given their culture may be more SEC-like than others like Mizzou, but is based north enough that snow comes into play most Octobers and Novembers.

I'm not so sure that V.Tech up and leaves if the SEC came to them. They may have some fight from the state legislature who fought hard through UVa to get them invited to the ACC. It is a possibility though, but for some reason, I think the SEC looks elsewhere before looking at the ACC.

Admittedly not as well-read on the topic as surely some others on this thread are, I'd seen more commentary about SEC's targets being TX (but unlikely to happen), VaTech, FSU, or Clemson. There is a real rationale that they pick up another Eastern team to balance their divisions from the T A&M addition. I'd sure like it to be WV or MO, instead of an ACC school. But looking at it from an SEC perspective, doesn't VPI bring more to the table than WV? Better recent football tradition. Better access to mid-Atlantic TV markets. More prestige (coming from the ACC vs the BE). More money coming out of the Alumni/fan base? I really do hope that I am wrong! :eek:

So, nobody has an opinion on, if there's just one addition required, who the ACC gets to replace a VPI or FSU-type defection?

[Mike Corey]

What? And give up their rivalry and excuses for rioting after they play us, win or lose? (My laptop at work refuses to enter any of these hideous new smilies so I roll my eyes at you.)

I'll miss them, too, bless their hearts.

[Duvall]

I'll miss them, too, bless their hearts.

It certainly would be a shame to see them go (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/maryland-football-fan-curses-at-11-year-old-boy/2011/09/13/gIQAl1YbPK_blog.html).

[Duvall]

Texas to ACC, almost certainly! (http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/sources-texas-has-three-viable-realignment-options-1851020.html)

Nah, not really. But it is interesting to see Texas lay out its demands for the Pac-12 in the form of potential strengths of the ACC.

[devildeac]

It certainly would be a shame to see them go (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/maryland-football-fan-curses-at-11-year-old-boy/2011/09/13/gIQAl1YbPK_blog.html).

And I would hope the door would not bump their butts too firmly if they exited. Why does that article not surprise me?

[MulletMan]

If OU and OkieSt bolt, I think that Texas and Notre Dame go to the BigTwelevenfourteen.

[devildeac]

Texas to ACC, almost certainly! (http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/sources-texas-has-three-viable-realignment-options-1851020.html)

Nah, not really. But it is interesting to see Texas lay out its demands for the Pac-12 in the form of potential strengths of the ACC.

Oooh, Rick Barnes coaching against unc again. That has great potential.

[superdave]

Oooh, Rick Barnes coaching against unc again. That has great potential.

I was at the Clemson-Unc game (Jan/Feb 1998) in the Smith Center when Clemson had to play the final 6 minutes with 4 guys because the officiating was so biased (and Clemson was prolly rough). Barnes took off his jacket, turned around to the Clemson fans and asked if they wanted him to enter the game. He then went up to the scorer's table and told the refs he wanted to check in. Pretty amusing. He hated all things Chapel Hill.

[A-Tex Devil]

Texas to ACC, almost certainly! (http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/sources-texas-has-three-viable-realignment-options-1851020.html)

Nah, not really. But it is interesting to see Texas lay out its demands for the Pac-12 in the form of potential strengths of the ACC.

It's tough having two threads on this as this one seems to have come back to reality a bit -- but these are more than rumors. I think Texas wants to be in the Pac whatever, but it needs leverage to shoehorn some semblance of its network in. If the ACC will allow schools to keep their 3rd tier money and the LHN to stay in place, UT will waive it in front of the Pac 10 (and the Big 10 for that matter). Because make no mistake, Larry Scott is desperate to get Texas in the fold, and Jim Delaney is close to that.

I think, and tend to hope, that it's a bluff by UT. But if it gets called, Texas could play the ACC card. My fear there is that it will be only temporary for UT, and all this talk about UT not being the villain in this (which they aren't right now) goes straight out the window -- because they would be bad actors if they joined the ACC only to better deal them when contracts came back up next time around.

[laxbluedevil]

Originally Posted by laxbluedevil
Atlantic League, 10: BC, UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU. The A League would dominate college sports and half the population and media and money, at least doubling PAC 12's recent record network deals at $40M per school per year, and with Atlantic League Network at least doubling Big Ten Network's payouts at another $20M per school per year, making more than 10 times as much per school as ACC pays out now.

ACC right now is a joke. Unbalanced unfair football divisions with Coastal crushing Atlantic, and crushing Duke football and even Miami and everyone other than VT. Duke has a cross division football rivalry with Wake losing to them 10+ straight years, so Duke plays NCSU every 2 or 3 years?? Scheduling home and home in hoops, and playing everyone every year in football is the only way to determine true league champs, and preserve real conference rivalries, in regions that make sense.

Miami won football national titles in Big East and nothing in ACC. VT only played for a national title in Big East. Clemson just like South Carolina wants to get away from the political dominance of the NC schools and away from corrupt Chapel Hill refs and John "Clemson deserves the death penalty but UNC is squeaky clean" Swofford. NCSU wants to get away from the shadow of UNC and Duke at least twice as much as Texas A&M wants to get away from Texas. Wake wants to solidify membership in and be the academic leader of a BCS league just like Vandy or Duke or Northwestern or Stanford.


5 ACC and 6 Big East football schools would add Memphis to make 12. 2 Big East divisions perfectly balanced in both football and basketball:

Big East South: Miami, South Florida, Clemson, NCSU, Memphis, Wake

Big East North: VT, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers


8 former Big East basketball schools are all catholic: Depaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, Notre Dame (could replace ND if poached by Big 10 with St Louis if needed)


Big 10: should go back to original 10, or replace PSU with Notre Dame and rename itself Big 12

Big 12: should go back to 12, or rename itself Big 10

PAC 10: should go back to 10, or stay at PAC 12



Some State fans want to leave the ACC, but there is ZERO evidence that anyone in the NCSU administration shares this desire.


It doesn't matter what NCSU or UNC or NC's state legislature wants. 9 Atlantic League schools, BC, UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, GT, FSU, can invite a 10th member UNC and if they don't accept invite NCSU or Clemson or Miami. Best option for UNC would be Atlantic League, best option for NCSU would be a new Big East. Nobody denies the reasons Miami, VT, Clemson, or Wake, would prefer a new Big East. NCSU is overshadowed twice as much by UNC and Duke as Texas A&M is overshadowed by Texas. Texas A&M isn't even doing badly in Big 12, they recruit extremely well in football, were ranked last year in MBB, and just won WBB NCAA title, while NCSU hasn't done anything in decades. But again, it's not up to NCSU or teams not asked to join, Big East should take them. South Carolina left ACC for the same reasons Clemson, FSU, or any ACC school not in NC wants to leave. ACC MBB tournaments have been in NC 48 of 58 years, and won by schools in NC 50 of 58 years. Why would UMD or FSU or anyone else want to give unfair advantages to the likes of NCSU or Wake or UNC, or let John Swofford have every ACC tournament for every ACC mens and womens sport in NC every year or hire all the refs to give his heels the most FTs every year even when they finish dead last in MBB? Unless they enjoy being dominated, they'd have to be insane to want any part of that. Some here are talking about moving ACC tournament to Kansas or Texas, it would be better to move Atlantic League tournament between locations like Boston, NY/NJ, Philadelphia, DC, NC, Atlanta, and St Petersburg.

[Duvall]

Some here are talking about moving ACC tournament to Kansas or Texas, it would be better to move Atlantic League tournament between locations like Boston, NY/NJ, Philadelphia, DC, NC, Atlanta, and St Petersburg.

Of all the strange things you have said, this may be the strangest.

[uh_no]

Of all the strange things you have said, this may be the strangest.

I think he meant St. Petersburg russia. The ACC needs to broaden its international appeal.

[laxbluedevil]

Why? St Petersburg hosted a Final Four with a huge dome that would double ACCT attendance like when it's in the Georgia Dome, and be good preparation for final fours, FSU would want it there, and Duke. Alternatively, A League tourney could move between 5 instead of 7 locations, NY/NJ, Philadelphia to lure PSU, DC is in the middle of A League schools as well as tourney locations, NC, and Atlanta. St Petersburg made even more sense when I first proposed new Big East and Atlantic League back in 1998 with Miami in A League instead of UConn, since UConn had no div.I FBS football and had 0 of their 3 MBB titles and 1 of their 7 WBB titles back then, while Miami looked ready to dominate NCAA football with a cleaned up program. Looks like UNC could get hit by NCAA worse than Miami but it's tough to separate Duke and UNC, the heels would be the most corrupt member of the A League so it would be fun to rag on them about that and their sudden mediocrity in A League tourneys and overall sports.

[CDu]

Why? St Petersburg hosted a Final Four with a huge dome that would double ACCT attendance like when it's in the Georgia Dome, and be good preparation for final fours, FSU would want it there, and Duke.

Playing ACC tournament games in a large dome doesn't double attendance on it's own. You have to have fan interest, and the majority of ACC fans live between DC and Atlanta. For the most part, people in Tampa/St. Pete don't care about ACC basketball. They care about football. And in that area, they care a fair amount about UF football. FSU and Miami just don't have much basketball following. So you'd be forcing fans of all of the other ACC schools to travel WAY out of the way, and you wouldn't be gaining much from the local fans. Despite the bigger venue, you'd probably see less attendance rather than more.

[devildeac]

I think he meant St. Petersburg russia. The ACC needs to broaden its international appeal.

Nyet. (Unless it's Duke to China and Dubai)

[Duvall]

Why? St Petersburg hosted a Final Four with a huge dome that would double ACCT attendance like when it's in the Georgia Dome...

I doubt that (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Revisited/wake-vs-vt.jpg).

[throatybeard]

I think it's rather amusing that one of the Big XII's ideas for a survival strategy was to court Arkansas, who is in the king conference and would have no reason for going anywhere, much less to the deck of the Titanic. Arguably, you could cite the SWC scandals in the 1980s and Arkansas' resulting departure to the SEC as the flap of a butterfly's wing that set this whole thing in motion. Because a little bug went ka-SMU.

[ChillinDuke]

The front page article on "A Path Back for the ACC" offered up some odd recommendations. Among them: the pod system for a 12-team league (league is already prepping for 14 teams; K "vomits" at the idea), a 9-team conference tourney (so much for any team being able to make the NCAAT), and eliminating the regular season conference champion.

I pretty much disagreed with every point in the entire article.

[hq2]

Well, expansion may bring in some decent B-Ball schools; Pitt and Syracuse are both pretty good. But in the end, the real problem with too many schools in the conference is that the rivalries are simply becoming too diluted. Without home-and-home scheduling, the kind of school-to school to rivalries that used to develop in the old days simply don't happen any more. You just don't have the kind of intense emotion associated with regular season games you used to have. And, with lots of mediocre schools for the other teams to play, a lot of them no longer feel the kind of pressure to match up with Duke and Carolina that they did in the old days, when they had to play them twice each, nearly 30% of their schedule in an 8 team league. They can simply concede them, (needing only one upset to go 1/2 against them, by the way) concentrate on beating everyone else, and still make the NCAAs and have a decent conference ranking. In the end, I'd have to say ACC Basketall as "ACC BASKETBALL!" , intense home-and-home rivalries between quality ranked teams, doesn't exist anymore. Those days are, sadly gone. They are indeed mourned.

[ForkFondler]

The one thing in the article that I agree with is that the unbalanced schedule makes the regular season less interesting.

Two geographic divisions with home and home within division would be a damn fine idea. A 19 game schedule would allow one game a year against the other division as well.

[uh_no]

The one thing in the article that I agree with is that the unbalanced schedule makes the regular season less interesting.

Two geographic divisions with home and home within division would be a damn fine idea. A 19 game schedule would allow one game a year against the other division as well.


I'm sure you understand, but you're a little ambiguous, a 19 game schedule allows for one game a year against EACH team in the other division...not one game for the entire divition.