Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    The ACC of old is gone because the soul of the ACC was sold for football. I can't blame the presidents and the commish for doing so as that is the landscape. They just did a terrible job at the schools they choose. VT was a good choice for football. BC was an overall terrible choice (Matt Ryan quickly left and they were terrible in football again). Miami was a choice for football history but has turned into an epic failure.

    The ACC would have been smart to add WVU, Pitt, and VT. Those three would have created rivalries.

    Could have had WV, Pitt, Maryland, vt, UVA, and Clemson in one division.
    Duke, UNC, state, wake, gt, and FSU in the other.

    Maryland would have gotten 2 geographical rivals that would travel well and the nc schools could stay together. The moment the 4 nc schools stopped playing home and homes is the minute the conference nose dived. If the conference wants to go back to its roots it will reshuffle the divisions so the the 4 nc schools can play home and home again.

    I hope to see

    Syracuse, BC, Pitt, ND, Louisville, UVA, Maryland and VT big east division
    4 NC schools, Clemson, GT, miami, and FSU in ACC division

    Just replace Maryland with someone when they find the right school.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by gocanes0506 View Post
    The ACC of old is gone because the soul of the ACC was sold for football. I can't blame the presidents and the commish for doing so as that is the landscape. They just did a terrible job at the schools they choose. VT was a good choice for football. BC was an overall terrible choice (Matt Ryan quickly left and they were terrible in football again). Miami was a choice for football history but has turned into an epic failure.

    The ACC would have been smart to add WVU, Pitt, and VT. Those three would have created rivalries.

    Could have had WV, Pitt, Maryland, vt, UVA, and Clemson in one division.
    Duke, UNC, state, wake, gt, and FSU in the other.

    Maryland would have gotten 2 geographical rivals that would travel well and the nc schools could stay together. The moment the 4 nc schools stopped playing home and homes is the minute the conference nose dived. If the conference wants to go back to its roots it will reshuffle the divisions so the the 4 nc schools can play home and home again.

    I hope to see

    Syracuse, BC, Pitt, ND, Louisville, UVA, Maryland and VT big east division
    4 NC schools, Clemson, GT, miami, and FSU in ACC division

    Just replace Maryland with someone when they find the right school.
    I get what you're saying about BC; but I also understand why the ACC chose BC over a school like WVU. I'm assuming that ACC was focused on gaining a share of the Boston-New England market when they included BC (something the BIG has recently done by admitting a mediocre football program in MD in order to gain the DC/Baltimore markets). Plus, BC is a terrific academic school and it fit well within the academic culture of the ACC at that time. WVU just didn't fit (and it may still not today) the culture of the ACC although the conference did compromise itself by selecting a school like Louisville from an academic perspective. That being said, I'm fine with the schools that are currently in the ACC and the ones that are coming within the next 2 years. I love having ND and I think eventually they will become a full member given the changing landscape of college football and the impending playoff format.

    One last question for all of you: Even with the upcoming inclusion of ND, Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC and MD going to the BIG, is the BIG the premiere athletic and academic conference in the country? I am so tired of hearing MD administrators tout the BIG as the most presitigious (and desired to be in) conference in the country; and that it's academic reputation ranks second only to the Ivy League. This has been brough at different times over multiple threads; but I wanted to get a current idea on where people stand on this. I admit that I am extremely biased in favor of the ACC; and I recognize that the BIG has that multi-billion dollar academic consortium relationship with the University of Chicago; and that most of the universities have the presitgious AAU designation; but I still feel the ACC is on equal playing field with the BIG in prestigue and the combination of high excellence in both sports and academics. Even with MD going to the BIG and Louisville (and I'm not trying to put down Louisville in any way but merely making an objective point) coming to the ACC, The ACC schools respectively match up very well in academic rankings to the BIG. Am I wrong?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    When the bcs tourney (inevitably) expands to 8 teams, push for auto-bids for bcs champs and at-large for the other three slots. Make sure a team not playing a full ACC slate cannot play for the ACC championship.

    That'll get Notre Dame to join fully.

    -jk
    I think the near-term goal should be to coax ND up to seven games. That would be enough to compete for a divisional and conference championship. Get the other three teams in their pod to agree to an extra cross divisional game once every three years to make up for the one ND isn't playing. If Navy is #16, ND would only have to agree to one more game than they are on the books for now.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    I get what you're saying about BC; but I also understand why the ACC chose BC over a school like WVU. I'm assuming that ACC was focused on gaining a share of the Boston-New England market when they included BC (something the BIG has recently done by admitting a mediocre football program in MD in order to gain the DC/Baltimore markets). Plus, BC is a terrific academic school and it fit well within the academic culture of the ACC at that time. WVU just didn't fit (and it may still not today) the culture of the ACC although the conference did compromise itself by selecting a school like Louisville from an academic perspective. That being said, I'm fine with the schools that are currently in the ACC and the ones that are coming within the next 2 years. I love having ND and I think eventually they will become a full member given the changing landscape of college football and the impending playoff format.

    One last question for all of you: Even with the upcoming inclusion of ND, Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC and MD going to the BIG, is the BIG the premiere athletic and academic conference in the country? I am so tired of hearing MD administrators tout the BIG as the most presitigious (and desired to be in) conference in the country; and that it's academic reputation ranks second only to the Ivy League. This has been brough at different times over multiple threads; but I wanted to get a current idea on where people stand on this. I admit that I am extremely biased in favor of the ACC; and I recognize that the BIG has that multi-billion dollar academic consortium relationship with the University of Chicago; and that most of the universities have the presitgious AAU designation; but I still feel the ACC is on equal playing field with the BIG in prestigue and the combination of high excellence in both sports and academics. Even with MD going to the BIG and Louisville (and I'm not trying to put down Louisville in any way but merely making an objective point) coming to the ACC, The ACC schools respectively match up very well in academic rankings to the BIG. Am I wrong?
    Its an interesting point. Here is the matchup
    AAU membership
    Big "10" Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern. They will include 2 in Maryland and Rutgers. The only non member is Nebraska (they were until the year they joined the conference).
    ACC UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Maryland of course we are losing Maryland and Syracuse was a former member.

    Although AAU membership is not the measurement of academia it would take forever to compare all the stats.

    Athletic budgets:
    The ACC's top team, UNC, would only have been the 8th highest budget in the Big. The lowest reported athletic budget in FY12 in the Big was 61.5 million. Northwestern wasnt reported and I expect there budget was much lower. Only UNC, Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia's were higher. Disclaimer: Duke, Miami, BC, and WF didnt report. (Source: sports business journal).

    Athletic success:
    ACC total NCAA championships is 124
    Big 10 265

    These are of June 2012 and not counting championships before joining the conference. I would say the big has taking over as the best bball conference. The Big has had recent success in women's field hockey and wrestling. They haven't had a men's bball championship since 2000. The ACC has had 5 since then.

    The argument for who is best athletically based on numbers wouldn't be argument. We will go back 20 years for measurement of recent success. ACC as 72 championships since then (over 50% of the conference total). 73 for the Big. So over 60 percent of theres are from older than 93. Also a lot of theres were from 70 and prior when they were the only conference worth mentioning in sports. The Big also participates in many more sports than the ACC.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by gocanes0506 View Post
    Its an interesting point. Here is the matchup
    AAU membership
    Big "10" Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern. They will include 2 in Maryland and Rutgers. The only non member is Nebraska (they were until the year they joined the conference).
    ACC UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Maryland of course we are losing Maryland and Syracuse was a former member.

    Although AAU membership is not the measurement of academia it would take forever to compare all the stats.

    Athletic budgets:
    The ACC's top team, UNC, would only have been the 8th highest budget in the Big. The lowest reported athletic budget in FY12 in the Big was 61.5 million. Northwestern wasnt reported and I expect there budget was much lower. Only UNC, Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia's were higher. Disclaimer: Duke, Miami, BC, and WF didnt report. (Source: sports business journal).

    Athletic success:
    ACC total NCAA championships is 124
    Big 10 265

    These are of June 2012 and not counting championships before joining the conference. I would say the big has taking over as the best bball conference. The Big has had recent success in women's field hockey and wrestling. They haven't had a men's bball championship since 2000. The ACC has had 5 since then.

    The argument for who is best athletically based on numbers wouldn't be argument. We will go back 20 years for measurement of recent success. ACC as 72 championships since then (over 50% of the conference total). 73 for the Big. So over 60 percent of theres are from older than 93. Also a lot of theres were from 70 and prior when they were the only conference worth mentioning in sports. The Big also participates in many more sports than the ACC.
    Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

    Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

    Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.
    Here are the sports in each conference

    ACC
    Basketball x 2, cross country x 2, field hockey, football, soccer x 2, volleyball, swimming x 2, indoor track x 2, wrestling, baseball, golf x 2, lacrosse x 2, rowing, softball, track x 2, tennis x 2. 25.

    Big

    Same lineup with lacrosse substituted by gymnastics.

    So I was wrong in the fact the current sports are not different numbers. Of course the Big has championships in other sports like sychronized swimming and trampoline. I am unable to quickly find the lineup of participation by sport by year to see if they once dwarfed the ACC in sports participation.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Because nobody but people attached to the four schools gives a rat's patoot about the four of them being connected. They're all in two TV markets. Two are small private schools. And none of them are good at football. The Big 4 schools being connected to each other is irrelevant to over 90% of the American populace, who pay attention to sports, not to mention the folks who don't.
    While all of what you say above is true, I didn't ask why everyone else wouldn't care about the old Big Four being together-- I asked why he (the poster who, from his posting here, may be reasonably supposed to be "attached to [one of] the four schools", and thus would seemingly be aware of and/or care about ACC tradition) did not at least try to honor that modest tradition by putting those four schools together.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    Not to come off as being argumentative with you because I really don't know; but I was surprised to read that the BIG plays in more sports than the ACC. Are you sure? I don't believe the BIG plays as a conference in sports like Lacrosse (and just like the ACC, they don't play in hockey).

    Thank-you for providing those stats. I thought the ACC had more current AAU memebers. From an academic ranking perspective (like US News and World Report, for ex), I thought the ACC lined up nicely against the BIG but again I could be wrong about that as well.
    I think the Big 10 has just started (or is starting) to play hockey-- the Big 10 members in other college hockey conferences withdrew, because the Big 10 now has enough members playing hockey to have their own league.

Similar Threads

  1. MLX: Duke at Notre Dame
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2012, 04:53 PM
  2. MBB: Notre Dame 56, Pittsburgh 51
    By moonpie23 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-25-2011, 01:01 PM
  3. Cal- Notre Dame
    By dukelifer in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-27-2010, 12:32 AM
  4. Notre Dame vs Louisville
    By dukelifer in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 08:56 AM
  5. Duke – Notre Dame
    By 4decadedukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 12:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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