(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12.

That's where the Big12 is the real oddball conference for this discussion, being formed from The Big Eight and the SWC, it was already a mix of distinctively different cultures. The southern side of the Great Plains were settled more from the Southeastern states, and the northern side of the Great Plains settled more from the Great Lakes states (and famously Kansas was a mix of both, leading to "Bloody Kansas" before and during the Civil War). So there is a substantial degree of cultural fit between the old Big 12 Northern division and the western part of the Big Ten, which doesn't extend very far into the old Big 12 Southern division.

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.

If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?

Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?

Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

(12-27-2013 12:49 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This is the demographic population in Utah that is actually growing.

Real growth around Utah County is about the same as Salt Lake County:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo%E2%80...litan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_C...litan_area

The trend is similar to what we see in just about every other state in the nation: a vibrant, densely populated urban center with slower rate of growth & booming rate of growth in the smaller suburbs/exurbs.

(12-27-2013 12:49 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  BYU is seen as the only acceptable choice in schools and going elsewhere, especially the secular U of U, is equated by some as being apostate.

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYK6J-XuOs

That's the chairman of BYU's Board of Trustees.

Utah is the only state that is predominantly LDS. 2/3 of BYU students are from out-state:

http://yfacts.byu.edu/Article?id=207

And a lot of BYU students serve 2 year missions abroad. Over 99% serve in areas where our religion is the minority. We prefer secularism in public life. It keeps us safe.

Finally, I'm not seeing much daylight between Huntsman & Romney. Both come from prominent, obscenely wealthy LDS families. Both have the Ivy League pedigree. Both were socially moderate/fiscally conservative Republican governors. Both shifted right when politically expedient: Romney when running for the GOP presidential nomination, Huntsman when running for Utah governor.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Narcissi...ces/en-en/

Here's what really matters:

http://chronicle.com/article/Peers-Inter...ta/134262/

The only school selecting BYU as a peer is Pepperdine. That's good company, IMO. Limited, but good.

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Care to take a bet who has the most ACCCG appearances in the future? I'll give you SU. BC, and Wake.

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Some of you need history lessons. Wake's great fluke happened once before in 1970. Wake has been in the Southern Conference/ACC since 1937 and has two football championships over those 75 years. Using the fluke that was the combined down years of FSU and Clemson as a basis for comparison is not wise.

Carolina Basketball stunk for several years under Matt Doherty. That's a statistical anomaly. Clemson football has had top teams on a consistent basis since the 1930's and IIRC only stunk in the 50's, and toward the end of the Tommy Bowden era.

FSU has stunk before Bobby Bowden, and then only for the last 4 years of Bobby Bowden's reign.

This was when BC and Wake took the Atlantic.

Good God, anyone silly enough to actually think that I believe that Wake Forest football > Clemson football and FSU football is nuts. My point is that the schools which the USC fan thought should be booted from the ACC aren't the dead wood that he/she pretends that they are, hence the "FWIW" (A.K.A "For What It's Worth").

And for the record, I am not calling either of the above posters crazy. I have no idea if they actually thought that I was claiming that WF fb > CU fb and FSU fb. My statement is a general one, not something aimed at an individual person.

(12-28-2013 10:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Care to take a bet who has the most ACCCG appearances in the future? I'll give you SU. BC, and Wake.

None of the above. My money is on UMD. They're a sleeper.

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Don't take it as disrespect to fans of those schools. I just dont think they move the meter at all and don't bring much to the table. Pitt is lucky to bring 20k to a game, syracuse plays in a basketball arena, Wake is a small private school in a redundant market, and BC is in a recruiting wasteland.

(12-29-2013 11:03 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Don't take it as disrespect to fans of those schools. I just dont think they move the meter at all and don't bring much to the table. Pitt is lucky to bring 20k to a game, syracuse plays in a basketball arena, Wake is a small private school in a redundant market, and BC is in a recruiting wasteland.

No. Syracuse plays basketball in a football stadium, Pitt's average attendance is north of 40k, and BC has fielded a very successful program for quite some time. The Eagles can't be in THAT bad of a recruiting wasteland. Beyond that, Syracuse also tends to get pretty decent ratings, and BC and Pitt were instrumental in getting a scheduling agreement with ND. I can't tell if you're trying to troll or just terribly misinformed.

(12-29-2013 11:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 11:03 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 10:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.

ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Don't take it as disrespect to fans of those schools. I just dont think they move the meter at all and don't bring much to the table. Pitt is lucky to bring 20k to a game, syracuse plays in a basketball arena, Wake is a small private school in a redundant market, and BC is in a recruiting wasteland.

No. Syracuse plays basketball in a football stadium, Pitt's average attendance is north of 40k, and BC has fielded a very successful program for quite some time. The Eagles can't be in THAT bad of a recruiting wasteland. Beyond that, Syracuse also tends to get pretty decent ratings, and BC and Pitt were instrumental in getting a scheduling agreement with ND. I can't tell if you're trying to troll or just terribly misinformed.

I guess. It's just my opinion, I don't think those four schools really add a whole lot. Their traditions carry them a lot

Pitt sells 40k tickets, lets not confuse that with people actually going to the game.

(12-30-2013 07:13 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 11:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 11:03 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 01:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ACC would be best served kicking out a few schools. Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest can go and the ACC would be stronger.

PRESENT
SU - 4-4 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)
BC - 4-4 ACC record (7-5 record) bowl appearance pending
Pitt - 3-5 ACC record and a bowl win (7-6 overall)

FUTURE
All three are young teams with new coaches (Pitt's just finished his 2nd year whereas BC and SU have coaches that just finished/are in their 1st)

PAST
All three have Heisman winners, undefeated seasons, and 2/3 have at least one NC (Pitt has 9). Beyond that, Pitt and SU are two of the most storied programs of all time (both in the top 20 in all time wins, and both have post season awards named after their alumni)

INTANGIBLES
Pitt, SU, and BC all have great academics, and where NY and New England has weak recruiting, western PA and Ohio is excellent. However, SU athletics are a revenue goldmine (it will be about 3rd in the ACC after FSU and UL) and SU gets very solid overall ratings. 2/3 of those schools bring their own bowl (Pinstripe - SU and Detroit - Pitt), and SU and Pitt have elite basketball programs (SU also has an elite lacrosse program, which matters in the ACC).

Are you sure those are the schools that you want to cut?

EDIT: FWIW, BC and WF also have more ACC championship game appearances than UNC and Miami, and BC has as many as Clemson (WF has as many wins as Clemson).

Don't take it as disrespect to fans of those schools. I just dont think they move the meter at all and don't bring much to the table. Pitt is lucky to bring 20k to a game, syracuse plays in a basketball arena, Wake is a small private school in a redundant market, and BC is in a recruiting wasteland.

No. Syracuse plays basketball in a football stadium, Pitt's average attendance is north of 40k, and BC has fielded a very successful program for quite some time. The Eagles can't be in THAT bad of a recruiting wasteland. Beyond that, Syracuse also tends to get pretty decent ratings, and BC and Pitt were instrumental in getting a scheduling agreement with ND. I can't tell if you're trying to troll or just terribly misinformed.

I guess. It's just my opinion, I don't think those four schools really add a whole lot. Their traditions carry them a lot

Pitt sells 40k tickets, lets not confuse that with people actually going to the game.

And how many Pitt games have you been to the last decade that allow you to make such a statement?