Frank the Tank Wrote:

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:Well, Frank, “experts” couldn’t stop talking about how the BE’s autobid should have been removed because of ONE DOWN CYCLE. Forgive us for feeling a little relieved that the microscope is off of the BE for a while.

I completely understand the relief. All I'm saying is that it would be misguided to assume that the underperformance of the ACC over the past couple of years is a permanent situation, so it can't be concluded that the ACC expansion was any type of "failure" or any schools regret the move in the long-term. Just as it was wrong for the "experts" to conclude the Big East should have lost its autobid after one down cycle, it's just as wrong to think that the ACC made the wrong long-term moves after one down cycle.

My point was that conferences need to look at how they come out in the worst-case scenarios every bit as much as they hope for the best-case scenarios since it's how they are perceived in the bad times that show their true strength. Everyone gets great press and good TV ratings when they are flying high, but it can change on a dime. (Whether right or wrong, this is why TV networks still pay up for the "old reliables" of the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame in the end - even when they are bad, there's still an audience.) If a conference is truly strong for the long-term, then there should never be a "microscope" even if it has a down year. That's the approach that conferences and schools need to take when looking at expansion.

It's why I think that the ACC expansion will be judged a success on and off the field in the long run - they have hit the worst possible patch they could have encountered and while fans might complain about the quality of play sometimes, they aren't under the microscope with respect to the BCS autobid. On the other hand, if the ACC would have stayed in its pre-expansion form and had gone through Florida State's rough patch without Virginia Tech and BC to prop the conference up, then the league could very well have been under that microscope. Simply put, the ACC turned its worst-case scenario from "being under microscope and worrying about retaining a BCS autobid" to "some temporary bad press" by expanding. Seeing that being a BCS league is pretty much the difference between being insanely rich and abject poverty in the college sports world, it's a move that the ACC had to make in retrospect (whether or not it was popular in Big East country).

Look, the bottomline is that the ACC wanted to be a power conference like the SEC and Big Ten and failed miserably. And watered down their basketball as well. But they got a hand full of a cash out of it so it at least worked out a little bit.

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:I agree Frank. As long as the BE survives, I have no problem w/the ACC.

Interestingly, the ACC has lost eight BCS bowls in a row. I wonder if we can write an “ACC rule” (10 losses in a row and you’re out)

That puts the Big Ten in jeapardy as well. It'll never happen if the Buckeyes are threatened...

Gray Avenger Wrote:Shed no tears for the ACC.

Gray, I don't think shedding tears is exactly what you're seeing on this board :moon2:

CatsClaw Wrote:

Frank the Tank Wrote:

animus Wrote:

KnightLight Wrote:This board as some great info about the ACC.

Yeah pretty much. Most of it has been horrible pub for the ACC. I wonder if their fans are starting to really hate the new confiqure. Or even if Miami, VT and BC are really starting to rethink if joining the ACC was such a great idea. The ACC falls apart, and the Big East thrives. Great karma is there is such a thing.

Now, all of the sudden, the Big East is supposedly the conference that Notre Dame and Penn State should only be lucky enough to join, the ACC and Big Ten should abandon football, and the national championship game should just be renamed the SEC Championship Game, right?

I love when people make up crap just to try and win an argument.

Yeah where in my statement did I say that Notre Dame and Penn St should feel lucky to join the Big East. The Big East is starting to thrive as far as perception. Everyone is right bout the power conferences take turns in cycles. Maybe the Big East just is the power conference right now but no one seems to notice nationwide. But for me to say that outright is crazy. Just look at the Big East's OOC record the past 3 years and the Big East's Bowl record the last 3 years. Sure the Big East is lacking 2 teams min compared to the other power conferences but the Big East is simply playing better but isn't getting the proper ratings. If the Big East keeps this up the next 2-4 years the press will notice. Some already are.

The ACC wanted to become as big the SEC, and they did fail in that regard miserably (at least over the short run). I think the stability issue is legitimate one though. With FSU having down years the conference would have been in real trouble without the added depth.

Additionally, was the old ACC really that much more stable than the old Big East? I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that if Florida State and a couple other teams (say Clemson, Maryland, and Georgia Tech) were offered membership into the Big East, they may have accepted. The added benefits wouldn’t have been less for those schools than they were for Boston College when it decided to leave the Big East.

If they were at risk of losing teams (and a BCS bid) under the old setup, the expansion probably reduced those risks considerably. Nothing short of a big SEC raid threatens the conference’s BCS status now. In that respect, the expansion has to be viewed as a success, even if not one that lived up to its full potential.

Miami and FSU will be back for sure....but while they are down USF is a program on the rise and a $hitstorm brewing for the "big 3". They are already starting to take recruits away so Miami and FSU may "come back" but by then USF will be entrenched and it will be known as the Big 4 instead of the Big 3.

BC made a horrible mistake by joining the ACC....they are way out of the footprint and nobody in that conference gives a rats butt about football in the northeast........they would have been much MUCH better served staying in the BE.....too bad, so sad.

The ACC will get better, and the only real mistake they made was taking BC. Check out the ACC v. SEC forum and tell me how BC fits in with all those Suthun' schools...

With expansion ACC it's a matter of dollars and "sense". They went for the dollars and in those terms their expansion has been a success, at least temporarily. It's the next TV contract that will determine the true value of the ACC expansion. The last contract was done on potential alone. It only makes sense that if the ACC does perform on the field that the expanded product won't bring the dollars it did with it's first contract.

As for the stability of the conference, if the SEC decided to go to 16 teams, the ACC would not be anymore stable than the Big East. I believe the keys to the stability of the ACC conference lie with original football first members like Clemson and Georgia Tech. If these schools don't see an improvement in ACC football they may start looking for alternatives.
CJ

Bearcats#1 Wrote:BC made a horrible mistake by joining the ACC....they are way out of the footprint and nobody in that conference gives a rats butt about football in the northeast........they would have been much MUCH better served staying in the BE.....too bad, so sad.

That's the mantra of the majority of this board, but the results don't reflect that. BC is at the same level (or perhaps a slight notch above) what they were in the Big East.

MichaelSavage Wrote:

Bearcats#1 Wrote:BC made a horrible mistake by joining the ACC....they are way out of the footprint and nobody in that conference gives a rats butt about football in the northeast........they would have been much MUCH better served staying in the BE.....too bad, so sad.

That's the mantra of the majority of this board, but the results don't reflect that. BC is at the same level (or perhaps a slight notch above) what they were in the Big East.

:iagree:

BC has some of its best FB and BB years ever by joining the ACC. But you have to wonder if BC FB got a boost in recruiting by being the only "stable" BCS FB team in the northeast after he raid.. Things should now begin to settle down for BC in BB and FB now that the BE has secured its BCS bid. BC is the only original BE team to never had made a final four. Pre raid BE only had three teams to never make the final four: Miami, VT and BC. Maybe that's why they left- got tired of seeing those final four banners at all the other BE schools.

CatsClaw Wrote:

Gray Avenger Wrote:

Frank the Tank Wrote:I am not an ACC guy, but am trained in business and still believe that the ACC is positioned well for the long-term (even if it will never be as powerful as the SEC or Big Ten).

I'm not trained in business, but common sense tells me, Frank is right. Shed no tears for the ACC.

Wow, C-USA fans defending the ACC. How shocking. It's kind of funny that ACC, SEC and C-USA fans literally float around the Big East board looking to defend the ACC. I guess those fans are upset that the Big East actually survived and our fans are actually acting like a big time conference.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no intention, desire or reason to defend the ACC (why would I?) - just stating my personal opinion as an objective college fan. And the only reasons I frequent this messageboard are to (1) see current gossip concerning possible addition of my school and (2) to talk college athletics with fans from another region. I certainly bear no ill will toward the Big East. On the contrary, I consider the BE to be the best chance for Memphis to feed at the BCS trough.

I don't think you can knock the ACC for going to 12, it worked great for the SEC and big 12. I think the ACC f'd up the process of going to 12 but it was a political nightmare for them considering some school's really wanted to go to 12 and some didn't, let alone who they could argee on what 3 school's they should expand with to 12. That is the money issue, i think the 3 school's the acc targeted was just downright crazy, ie 3 small private school's???? stupid. It should have been, in this order:

1) rutgers
2) W.V or V. tech
3) W.V or V.tech/syracuse/miami

I'd probably go with miami for #3 and Va tech for #2 but of course miami was gonna get the first bid. Yet, i think the acc might have been better off just going to 10 with miami and seeing how that worked for a few years before going to 12.

bluesox Wrote:I don't think you can knock the ACC for going to 12, it worked great for the SEC and big 12. I think the ACC f'd up the process of going to 12 but it was a political nightmare for them considering some school's really wanted to go to 12 and some didn't, let alone who they could argee on what 3 school's they should expand with to 12. That is the money issue, i think the 3 school's the acc targeted was just downright crazy, ie 3 small private school's???? stupid. It should have been, in this order:

1) rutgers
2) W.V or V. tech
3) W.V or V.tech/syracuse/miami

I'd probably go with miami for #3 and Va tech for #2 but of course miami was gonna get the first bid. Yet, i think the acc might have been better off just going to 10 with miami and seeing how that worked for a few years before going to 12.

In 2003 the fortunes of Miami and Rutgers were as opposite as can be; Miami had just played for a National title and Rutgers was coming off yet another awful season.

Yeah, miami was a lock for team 10 in the acc. Yet, rutgers always had potential for the ACC, so what if they sucked, that's good for the other school's, you got the flagship school of NJ + you could argue that puts the ACC in the NYC and philly market. I would have rolled out miami, va tech, and rutgers.

Omnicarrier alluded to this before in a reponse to rferry (remember him?) that time and circumstance has a lot to do with conference memberships/expansions and who gets in.

I'm surprised you don't include UConn in that list of schools (looking at 2008 and going forward and not 2003 of course). If you include RU, these are the last two 'state' schools in the 'northeast'. UConn is developing its following in FB, garners state wide support, good academics, olympic sports, and of course can be huge in New England (and the TV sets there).

The Miami-only 'option' was voted down by the ACC (I'm sure you already knew but just in case you didn't).

I have often wondered what the TV contract would be if the ACC & Big East FB schools just merged at the time. Split into two divisions and own the East Coast:

ACC North:

Syracuse
WVU
Pitt
BC
UConn
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia Tech
Temple

ACC South:

Florida State
Miami
UNC
NC State
Clemson
Wake Forest
Duke
Virginia
Georgia Tech

Play the title game at revolving locations like the Meadowlands, FedEx Field, Erricson Stadium, and the Orange Bowl.

I thought the ACC seriously considered Miami-only, but abandoned it when told they could not put on a championship game with only ten schools?

As far as BC, they are better (on the field) in the ACC, but is that more because of FSU’s (slight) and Miami’s respective declines than any upgrade in quality on their own part? As far as Frog’s point, it looks to me like UConn is catching up to BC, while RU is posed (if their recruiting pans out) to blow by them. I have no doubt that SU will do the same as soon as it gets its coaching ship righted.

bluesox Wrote:Yeah, miami was a lock for team 10 in the acc. Yet, rutgers always had potential for the ACC, so what if they sucked, that's good for the other school's, you got the flagship school of NJ + you could argue that puts the ACC in the NYC and philly market. I would have rolled out miami, va tech, and rutgers.

As someone above noted...back in 2003...even though RU joined the Big East back in 1991...they were almost irrelevant in football and basketball map.

RU's football program started in 1869 (played in 1st real collegiate football game ever) and by 2003...they never went to a Bowl Game outside of the State of NJ in their 134 year history. (Played in the inaugural Garden State Bowl in 1978 in Cherry Hill, NJ as that bowl game died after their 1981 game).

In 2003...RU was finishing their 11th straight non-winning season.

From 1981-2003, RU had only 5 winning seasons.

RU Hoops went to the Final Four in 1976 with Ron Sellers...but hadn't done much of anything in the Big East.

The media in NYC and Philly didn't really push RU much at all at that time.

Obviously, starting in 2004 and especially 2005...Schiano caused an "EARTHQUAKE" of support in NJ/NYC...as hundreds of thousands of RU alumni finally had something to cheer about again and as they say, the rest is history.

The football world looked different for some teams back in 2003 as to where they are today...and obviously, RU is one of them.

In 4-5 years...RU went from not being on the ACC Board for Expansion to a possible Big 10 candidate (maybe a long-shot at worst, but still a potential candidate).

With the right leadership, with INVESTING in facilities, a program can turn it around...just like RU.