Hmm Omni that doesn't fit the talking points of the old guard ACC LOL

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I think this overstates the condition of the conference. Regardless of the last round of expansion, I think Clemson and Florida State would have only taken SEC/Big Ten over ACC and neither were offering. Syracuse/Pitt adds seemed at least partially in case the SEC was able to raid the ACC when it was looking for #14 with A&M. Even if that's not the case, I think the ACC would have been fine.

None of that is to say the former Big East schools shouldn't have input here, but I don't think the ACC was in any real risk of collapse.

(11-19-2013 10:24 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I think this overstates the condition of the conference. Regardless of the last round of expansion, I think Clemson and Florida State would have only taken SEC/Big Ten over ACC and neither were offering. Syracuse/Pitt adds seemed at least partially in case the SEC was able to raid the ACC when it was looking for #14 with A&M. Even if that's not the case, I think the ACC would have been fine.

None of that is to say the former Big East schools shouldn't have input here, but I don't think the ACC was in any real risk of collapse.

I didnt say the ACC would have collapsed. But the Acc would not be fine today, in my own opinion, under those circumstances. Would a GOR exist today? I dont think so, there are a lot of different scenarios that could have played out and no one can reliably predict how so. But the "life boat" wasnt all one sided as some would like to think.

(11-19-2013 10:24 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I think this overstates the condition of the conference. Regardless of the last round of expansion, I think Clemson and Florida State would have only taken SEC/Big Ten over ACC and neither were offering. Syracuse/Pitt adds seemed at least partially in case the SEC was able to raid the ACC when it was looking for #14 with A&M. Even if that's not the case, I think the ACC would have been fine.

None of that is to say the former Big East schools shouldn't have input here, but I don't think the ACC was in any real risk of collapse.

SEC yes but B1G no. Even with the extra money, the culture differences between the schools is too much.

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:24 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I think this overstates the condition of the conference. Regardless of the last round of expansion, I think Clemson and Florida State would have only taken SEC/Big Ten over ACC and neither were offering. Syracuse/Pitt adds seemed at least partially in case the SEC was able to raid the ACC when it was looking for #14 with A&M. Even if that's not the case, I think the ACC would have been fine.

None of that is to say the former Big East schools shouldn't have input here, but I don't think the ACC was in any real risk of collapse.

SEC yes but B1G no. Even with the extra money, the culture differences between the schools is too much.

It is sort of unreal how so many b10 people have convinced themselves how desirable it is for others to be in a midwestern conference.

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

Of course this philosophy doesn't foster unity between the new and the old members in any way. Swafford might have to go with a soft transformation that slowly shifts the MBB tourney home further north to lessen the blow. The question is, say the ACC puts the tourney in DC for 5-7 years and its proven to be successful by every metric, do you still yank the tourney out of the there should MSG become available?

I think you have to evaluate the situation after that 5-7 years. Is MSG available? What is the situation between the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten in the Northeast?

Expanding into the Northeast might have been defensive, or offensive...really it doesn't matter. The issue now is that there is a new player in the region with the B10, thanks entirely to Maryland, along with the fragmented remains of two other conferences with the American and Big East. The Big East is an interesting player here because I think the jury is out on how that conference is perceived in 10 years. Is it going to be something equivalent to the 1980s Big East, or more like the WCC or A10 mid-major type...and that can mean early 1990s A10 with Temple and UMass which was pretty good? Probably something in between. The American, I think, is destined for 1990s CUSA status, at best.

People think that the ACC has rendered the Big East irrelevant. However, the ACC has only killed off the Big East in football, but this ...particularly about where you stick the basketball tournament...isn't just about football. There's still a lot of money in hoops, especially if one is considering a network, and we know that they are.

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I agree curesroc, but its important that the mutual benefit is acknowledge in board based decisions such as where the conference tourney is located. Playing any games in Greensboro is IMO a relic of the past. Even the SEC, for whom MBB is an afterthought, has decided to permanently located their tourney in Nashville.

There is just so much potential in playing permanently in DC that its hard for me to understand why there would be resistance to it.

(11-19-2013 12:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There is just so much potential in playing permanently in DC that its hard for me to understand why there would be resistance to it.

I agree if comparing it to playing in Greensboro. But if the resistance is holding out for NY, then I can understand it. In terms of showcasing an event, MSG was always at the top. Now that MSG is as state of the art as any other arena, it is even moreso. Getting the brands out in front of the biggest group of money backers and media agenda setters in the country is a big deal.

(11-19-2013 01:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There is just so much potential in playing permanently in DC that its hard for me to understand why there would be resistance to it.

I agree if comparing it to playing in Greensboro. But if the resistance is holding out for NY, then I can understand it. In terms of showcasing an event, MSG was always at the top. Now that MSG is as state of the art as any other arena, it is even moreso. Getting the brands out in front of the biggest group of money backers and media agenda setters in the country is a big deal.

As a Carolina fan, I don't care where the tourney is really. People will adjust no matter where it is. If the new schools want it in NYC, make it happen for them. It doesn't benefit UNC at all, but it doesn't hurt them either. If it is not at MSG, then keep rotating like it is now. Don't see the attraction of having a perm home in DC.

(11-19-2013 01:43 PM)samandrea Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 01:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There is just so much potential in playing permanently in DC that its hard for me to understand why there would be resistance to it.

I agree if comparing it to playing in Greensboro. But if the resistance is holding out for NY, then I can understand it. In terms of showcasing an event, MSG was always at the top. Now that MSG is as state of the art as any other arena, it is even moreso. Getting the brands out in front of the biggest group of money backers and media agenda setters in the country is a big deal.

As a Carolina fan, I don't care where the tourney is really. People will adjust no matter where it is. If the new schools want it in NYC, make it happen for them. It doesn't benefit UNC at all, but it doesn't hurt them either. If it is not at MSG, then keep rotating like it is now. Don't see the attraction of having a perm home in DC.

If it makes the ACC stronger, than it helps UNC.

If I'm just thinking as a Pitt fan, I'd prefer it to be held in Pittsburgh, which bid on hosting it. Next, I want it in DC, which is also substantially closer to Pittsburgh than NYC is, or maybe even in Philly. But as a supporter of the University of Pittsburgh, and thus wanting to see the ACC flourish, I want it located at the Garden, because that is absolutely where it will make the most difference for the conference as far as pursing its decade old the East Coast strategy. It's not like Greensboro is a significantly longer distance from Pittsburgh. This isn't about fan preference, driving distance, or better restaurants. Personally, that stuff doesn't matter at all to me. It is about media market, mind share, and recruiting grounds.

(11-19-2013 12:29 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It is sort of unreal how so many b10 people have convinced themselves how desirable it is for others to be in a midwestern conference.

Amen, brother, AMEN.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:24 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.

I think this overstates the condition of the conference. Regardless of the last round of expansion, I think Clemson and Florida State would have only taken SEC/Big Ten over ACC and neither were offering. Syracuse/Pitt adds seemed at least partially in case the SEC was able to raid the ACC when it was looking for #14 with A&M. Even if that's not the case, I think the ACC would have been fine.

None of that is to say the former Big East schools shouldn't have input here, but I don't think the ACC was in any real risk of collapse.

SEC yes but B1G no. Even with the extra money, the culture differences between the schools is too much.

Perhaps, but I think UVa might have gone with Maryland if the status quo remained with no further expansion by the ACC.

Losing UVa would have hurt even more than Maryland in my opinion. And losing both would have been crippling to the league.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-19-2013 12:45 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think you have to evaluate the situation after that 5-7 years. Is MSG available? What is the situation between the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten in the Northeast?

Expanding into the Northeast might have been defensive, or offensive...really it doesn't matter. The issue now is that there is a new player in the region with the B10, thanks entirely to Maryland, along with the fragmented remains of two other conferences with the American and Big East. The Big East is an interesting player here because I think the jury is out on how that conference is perceived in 10 years. Is it going to be something equivalent to the 1980s Big East, or more like the WCC or A10 mid-major type...and that can mean early 1990s A10 with Temple and UMass which was pretty good? Probably something in between. The American, I think, is destined for 1990s CUSA status, at best.

People think that the ACC has rendered the Big East irrelevant. However, the ACC has only killed off the Big East in football, but this ...particularly about where you stick the basketball tournament...isn't just about football. There's still a lot of money in hoops, especially if one is considering a network, and we know that they are.

I actually think Big East basketball might be the key to getting a foothold into MSG. If after the first couple years of the new BE at MSG isn't as "successful" as they hoped, they might want to consider alternating with a Midwest arena, this could lead to the ACC being in MSG when the BE is out in the Midwest while the ACC could be in Greensboro when the BE is at MSG. Of course, if the new, new, new BE is a success at MSG, then they will continue to want to keep that arrangement.

Time will tell. And perhaps the BiG might want that arrangement with the BE as well. Of course, if MSG is truly evicted from its current location, where it is rebuilt could change everything anyways.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-19-2013 08:00 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:45 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think you have to evaluate the situation after that 5-7 years. Is MSG available? What is the situation between the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten in the Northeast?

Expanding into the Northeast might have been defensive, or offensive...really it doesn't matter. The issue now is that there is a new player in the region with the B10, thanks entirely to Maryland, along with the fragmented remains of two other conferences with the American and Big East. The Big East is an interesting player here because I think the jury is out on how that conference is perceived in 10 years. Is it going to be something equivalent to the 1980s Big East, or more like the WCC or A10 mid-major type...and that can mean early 1990s A10 with Temple and UMass which was pretty good? Probably something in between. The American, I think, is destined for 1990s CUSA status, at best.

People think that the ACC has rendered the Big East irrelevant. However, the ACC has only killed off the Big East in football, but this ...particularly about where you stick the basketball tournament...isn't just about football. There's still a lot of money in hoops, especially if one is considering a network, and we know that they are.

I actually think Big East basketball might be the key to getting a foothold into MSG. If after the first couple years of the new BE at MSG isn't as "successful" as they hoped, they might want to consider alternating with a Midwest arena, this could lead to the ACC being in MSG when the BE is out in the Midwest while the ACC could be in Greensboro when the BE is at MSG. Of course, if the new, new, new BE is a success at MSG, then they will continue to want to keep that arrangement.

Time will tell. And perhaps the BiG might want that arrangement with the BE as well. Of course, if MSG is truly evicted from its current location, where it is rebuilt could change everything anyways.

Cheers,
Neil

I have been thoroughly surprised by the number of people interested in 'evicting' MSG from its current location. The attitude exhibited by some in the NYT represent everything I loathe about city planning.

(11-19-2013 12:29 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It is sort of unreal how so many b10 people have convinced themselves how desirable it is for others to be in a midwestern conference.

I am a traditionalist who would love nothing better than for the conferences to go back to more regional 8-10 team entities.

The truth on that is in the middle though. The Big Ten is not the desired location of a lot of top programs. It couldn't get Texas from the Big 12, Notre Dame, or likely North Carlina/Virginia from the ACC. The core of the ACC in the Mid-Atlantic was mostly unwilling to leave. I think we saw that pretty clearly with the last round of expansion.

With that said though, the Big Ten still did get Maryland to leave though and that is saying something considering that meant huge legal fights and exit penalties. It also got Nebraska to leave the Big 12, when it was conceivable the Big 12 could have added one (likely BYU then) and kept it going strong as ever. Florida State was at one point noticeably had people looking at other options (something that cannot be said of most the schools in the Mid-Atlantic). The Big 12 wasn't a move they were willing to make and that's not surprising given, after travel expenses, they weren't making anymore there. The Big Ten was another matter in that department (if it wasn't going to be more money there for the foreseeable future, then Maryland never would have left) and while I won't say the Seminoles definitely would have gone, I think they would have considered very closely.

None of this even means the fans would have been happy, but that's different than the conference/school decisions. Heck, half Maryland's fanbase and most the Big Ten fanbases still aren't exactly thrilled with the last move.

On the main topic, I think a rotation works well for the ACC. Tradition's value is often undersold. The state of North Carolina should not be left out of something that has been important to them for a long time. The conference has expanded though and new opportunities should be used to provided the number of fans attending doesn't decrease too much. If a spot opens in New York at Barcley's I'd say use it once every 3 years along with Washington, and North Carolina.

(11-19-2013 07:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:29 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It is sort of unreal how so many b10 people have convinced themselves how desirable it is for others to be in a midwestern conference.

Amen, brother, AMEN.

Cheers,
Neil

+1

(11-19-2013 08:00 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:45 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think you have to evaluate the situation after that 5-7 years. Is MSG available? What is the situation between the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten in the Northeast?

Expanding into the Northeast might have been defensive, or offensive...really it doesn't matter. The issue now is that there is a new player in the region with the B10, thanks entirely to Maryland, along with the fragmented remains of two other conferences with the American and Big East. The Big East is an interesting player here because I think the jury is out on how that conference is perceived in 10 years. Is it going to be something equivalent to the 1980s Big East, or more like the WCC or A10 mid-major type...and that can mean early 1990s A10 with Temple and UMass which was pretty good? Probably something in between. The American, I think, is destined for 1990s CUSA status, at best.

People think that the ACC has rendered the Big East irrelevant. However, the ACC has only killed off the Big East in football, but this ...particularly about where you stick the basketball tournament...isn't just about football. There's still a lot of money in hoops, especially if one is considering a network, and we know that they are.

I actually think Big East basketball might be the key to getting a foothold into MSG. If after the first couple years of the new BE at MSG isn't as "successful" as they hoped, they might want to consider alternating with a Midwest arena, this could lead to the ACC being in MSG when the BE is out in the Midwest while the ACC could be in Greensboro when the BE is at MSG. Of course, if the new, new, new BE is a success at MSG, then they will continue to want to keep that arrangement.

Time will tell. And perhaps the BiG might want that arrangement with the BE as well. Of course, if MSG is truly evicted from its current location, where it is rebuilt could change everything anyways.

Cheers,
Neil

The Big East is never voluntarily going to move out of MSG. The question is, will MSG renew with them? Attendance at MSG is going to be interesting to watch. I think they better hope SJU gets its act together quickly.

As a fan of one of the ACC old guard I will say that I could do without any further tournament games in G'boro. I've been to the tournament in G'boro and Charlotte, and while they are both nice, they are not destination spots. Count this old guard as one in favor of having the tournament in NYC as often as possible. I think the players will be much more excited about playing there, which may actually help Wake in recruiting somewhat (after Bz is fired, nothing will help until then).

(11-19-2013 08:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:00 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:45 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think you have to evaluate the situation after that 5-7 years. Is MSG available? What is the situation between the Big East, ACC, and Big Ten in the Northeast?

Expanding into the Northeast might have been defensive, or offensive...really it doesn't matter. The issue now is that there is a new player in the region with the B10, thanks entirely to Maryland, along with the fragmented remains of two other conferences with the American and Big East. The Big East is an interesting player here because I think the jury is out on how that conference is perceived in 10 years. Is it going to be something equivalent to the 1980s Big East, or more like the WCC or A10 mid-major type...and that can mean early 1990s A10 with Temple and UMass which was pretty good? Probably something in between. The American, I think, is destined for 1990s CUSA status, at best.

People think that the ACC has rendered the Big East irrelevant. However, the ACC has only killed off the Big East in football, but this ...particularly about where you stick the basketball tournament...isn't just about football. There's still a lot of money in hoops, especially if one is considering a network, and we know that they are.

I actually think Big East basketball might be the key to getting a foothold into MSG. If after the first couple years of the new BE at MSG isn't as "successful" as they hoped, they might want to consider alternating with a Midwest arena, this could lead to the ACC being in MSG when the BE is out in the Midwest while the ACC could be in Greensboro when the BE is at MSG. Of course, if the new, new, new BE is a success at MSG, then they will continue to want to keep that arrangement.

Time will tell. And perhaps the BiG might want that arrangement with the BE as well. Of course, if MSG is truly evicted from its current location, where it is rebuilt could change everything anyways.

Cheers,
Neil

I have been thoroughly surprised by the number of people interested in 'evicting' MSG from its current location. The attitude exhibited by some in the NYT represent everything I loathe about city planning.

You have to follow the money. BTW, the Dolans scuttled the Dome Stadium in lower Manhattan...payback is a biotch.