(05-18-2010 12:03 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't like to admit it, but I think BC is happier in the ACC than it was in the BE.

For the record, I am not debating that. I just had to laugh at the argument Bill Marsh and LastMinuteMan were having, when LMM decided to compare attendence by effectively removing the two top ranked teams from BC's home scheulde in the Big East, like that is some sort of fair argument or something.

(05-18-2010 12:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 11:33 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  So, I guess the question in these expansion threads should be:

Do Rutgers, Syracuse, & Pitt want to go to the Big Ten to become cannon fodder? :noisycricket:

Well paid cannon fodder, but cannon fodder nonetheless. Sort of the Washington Generals to Ohio State's, Michigan's, & Penn State's Harlem Globetrotters.

With the additional revenues and exposure from being in the B10, I believe Syracuse could be competitive in the B10. In 2009, a year SU went 4-8 (1-6 in the BE), we beat bowl bound Northwestern and took bowl bound Minnesota to OT. With OSU, PSU and Michigan in the same division, I would not expect many trips to the B10 Championship Game, but regular bowling and occasional trips to BCS games is a realistic possibility.

Syracuse, meet UK. UK, this is Syracuse. You two may be seeing a lot of each other.

(05-18-2010 12:25 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  You may be underestimating the effect the change will have on Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt. They will be out of their element, much like BC is now in the ACC.

No, I just think the Big Ten has been vastly overrated the past few years. Pitt is actually better equipped to play in the Big Ten judging by their team the past two years. Syracuse has its work cut out for it, but like I said, they can't do much worse. Rutgers recruits a lot of Florida players, moreso than any other Big Ten team. Their speed/smashmouth mix could be like kryptonite to the generally sluggish Big Ten teams.

(05-18-2010 11:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  In 2006, either Louisville or West Virginia, and probably even Rutgers, would have beaten the **** out of Ohio State or Michigan in the title game.

If OSU played the same way they did against Florida they would have been beaten by Kent State that day. We were bad in that game, but don't underestimate how good that team was during the season. It easily beat a Texas team in Austin that was on its way to a Big 12 title win (would beat Oklahoma) before Colt McCoy got injured.

(05-18-2010 11:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They are extremely top heavy, and vastly overrated.

Not sure I agree here. The conference has been down, there is no question there, but the middle teams haven't been bad. The records in the Capital One and Outback bowls reflect them being about equal to the SEC competition there. It's been the lower bowls that caused more problems over the past couple of years. Although come to think of it, I guess that could still qualify for top-heavy depending on where you draw the line. I'd draw it with the top 1 or 2 teams, but it's open to interpretation.

(05-17-2010 08:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:29 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

Quote:edit: I just noticed there is a debate between Pitt and Louisville as to who would be more attractive to the ACC. that is a no brainer; it's Pitt. They bring everything West Virginia brings, only on steroids (no offense WV fans), plus have high academics and ridiculous research money.

Pitt brings all the things West Virginia does except:

A) a larger fan base

B) actually being attractive to bowls

C) merchandise sales

D) producing more revenue from athletics



You can buy Pitt football season tickets for about the same price as the "required" donation one is needs to make to WVU before even being considered to purchase tickets for games in Morgantown

Just an FYI

Jackson

Wow, I would be expecting a B10 invite within the month....

Aside from Pitt not having their own stadium and practice facilities for football, do to not enough interest/donations/fanbase stability, and the fact they are just now putting together masterplans for non rev sports complexes, among the other items such as merchandise, basketball attendance, and so and so on.....yeah I think Pitt still trumps UL....

(05-18-2010 01:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 11:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They are extremely top heavy, and vastly overrated.

Not sure I agree here. The conference has been down, there is no question there, but the middle teams haven't been bad.

Don't confuse my use of "overrated" with "bad." But the Big Ten conference, as a whole, has somehow filtered the aura of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State down to the rest of the league. The SEC has this to some extent, but they have a lot more depth to half way justify it. What I am saying is the meat of the Big Ten is overrated in that in the past few years, one or two of the Big Ten champs deserved the same scrutiny that befell the Big East champs.

(05-18-2010 12:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  For the record, I am not debating that. I just had to laugh at the argument Bill Marsh and LastMinuteMan were having, when LMM decided to compare attendence by effectively removing the two top ranked teams from BC's home scheulde in the Big East, like that is some sort of fair argument or something.

Look, I don't have a drum to beat for BC. Quite the contrary. Certainly it doesn't help Big East attendance to lose their best two football programs. That's kind of the whole point. I don't know why you think that moving everyone left behind in the Big East up two spots in the standings would magically boost BC's interest. You are greatly misjudging the nature of BC fans if you think they give a crap about what a great season Cincinnati had. They were worried about getting stuck in a bowl with them if they won the ACC championship, like that would cheapen their BCS appearance. Most BC fans want no association with the Big East teams whatsoever. They think they're better than that. You and I can agree that they're dead wrong, but that's not going to change how many of them show up to the stadium.

Because this whole theory that BC fans would be happier in the Big East is based on closer geography, all we're really talking about is BC's interest in playing UConn, Rutgers and Syracuse. The rest of the BE lineup isn't any more convenient than the ACC. Look at the numbers for those 3 and tell me how badly BC wants to play them. They do not want to play UConn. They want to blackball UConn, freeze them out of any good conference and crush their program without ever playing a single down. For some reason that's how we do it in the Northeast. We don't settle it on the field, we play politics. BC does it to UConn, UConn does it to UMass, UMass does it to an assortment of lower tier New England programs, and the Ivy League sticks its nose up at all of us. BC will be much more interested in Rutgers if/when Rutgers joins the Big Ten. Prior to that, no interest. Syracuse they don't mind and would probably like to see in the ACC, but they don't miss them anywhere near badly enough to reverse course.

The numbers are what they are. You can speculate that they'd be different under different circumstances, but these are the only numbers we've got. I can speculate that UMass would average 45,000 attendance if we were in a BCS conference based on what UConn was averaging before they moved, but speculation wasn't good enough for the Big East when we asked to join. They laughed and said no thanks, they're holding out for Penn State (good luck with that). I don't see how you can expect speculation to be good enough for BC when the situation is reversed.

Minuteman, you're the one who was maneuvering the numbers. The only numbers we've got for BC's home attendance are the numbers I posted. Those numbers are factual & undisputed. And they show a clear difference in attendance in favor of the Big East years, followed by a downward trend after the move to the ACC. When people are interested in a program, ticket sales are up even for the bad games. More people buy season ticket packages. Heck, Alabama drew 90,000 to a spring intrasquad scrimmage. A decline in attendance is a sure sign that people don't care about the program as much a s they used to. Often that coincides with a decline in the level of play on the field in losing seasons. But that hasn't happened at BC. They've been winning, so there must be another reason.

BC may hate UConn, but they would sell out the house for a UConn game, partly fueled by that same hatred - just like Sox & Yankees - and partly because there would be a ton of UConn fans at the game.

The BC fans I talk to like the association with the upper tier academic schools in the ACC. However. liking the idea of the conference doesn't necessarily translate into fannies in the seats. Fans are often more likely to turn out when the opponent is someone they don't like, someone they want to see get crushed, someone they care about beating down.

In the Big East, BC had rivalries in both sports. Those were rivalries that mattered to people & they turned out to watch those games. I have BC, PC, & UConn alums all in my own family. Those games gave us something to fight about. I think our family situation was repeated in many other families. Ticket sales were probably also helped by the fact that many alums of those same Northeastern schools live in & around Boston & could easily go to the games.

The program needs something to give it some sizzle. Even if BC looked down on the rest of the Big East, there was still enough sizzle for more of them to turn out for those games than have been turning out since. Notre Dame people look down on BC. they regard themselves as the Catholic elite & BC people as wannabes - which is a great reason why BC just loves to beat Notre Dame. It's got sizzle.

It's not that moving teams up a couple of notches in the Big East after Miami & VA tech left made them better. It's that it made the games matter. But as it turns out, it's been more than that. Louisville & Cincinnati have turned out nationally ranked teams since they joined the Big East. USF has been almost as good. Rutgers has gotten better - much, much better. UConn has turned out to a good to very good team almost right away since it stepped up in competition. Overall this is a much deeper football conference than it used to be. My guess is that attendance would have improved had BC remained in the conference - instead of declining as it has.

Fans would have turned out for Syracuse, UConn, & Rutgers regardless because they're close. They would have turned out for Pitt, WV, Cincy , & Louisville because they would have mattered. There are no longer any Temple games on the schedule.

Cheers . . .

(05-18-2010 03:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 01:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 11:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They are extremely top heavy, and vastly overrated.

Not sure I agree here. The conference has been down, there is no question there, but the middle teams haven't been bad.

Don't confuse my use of "overrated" with "bad." But the Big Ten conference, as a whole, has somehow filtered the aura of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State down to the rest of the league. The SEC has this to some extent, but they have a lot more depth to half way justify it. What I am saying is the meat of the Big Ten is overrated in that in the past few years, one or two of the Big Ten champs deserved the same scrutiny that befell the Big East champs.

Fair enough.