(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  This thread is laughable. Everyone does realize the ACC houses the football national champ and is welcoming the defending basketball champ?

The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

The Texas schools are all "imports" in the Big 8/12 -- UT and friends have not even been there as long as FSU in the ACC or PSU in the Big Ten. OU is the only "legacy" football king in that league (of course they only had two and Nebraska was the other one).

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  This thread is laughable. Everyone does realize the ACC houses the football national champ and is welcoming the defending basketball champ?

The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  This thread is laughable. Everyone does realize the ACC houses the football national champ and is welcoming the defending basketball champ?

The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

(02-09-2014 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 10:47 PM)Star City Hokie Wrote:  The only way to kill the ACC is for the SEC to invite Florida State and Clemson. Thats it.

The Virginia schools and North Carolina schools are already in their #1 choice of conference and are completely happy.

Well that's not going to happen. If the SEC had wanted them they would have gotten them almost 2 years ago. So the question is why didn't the SEC want them? Because the SEC is almost owned by ESPN and the ACC is owned by ESPN and ESPN isn't going to waste an open slot by moving one of its properties to another of its properties when Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are not fully in one of their camps. The game is about product acquisition by the networks. They pay for the moves. Why pay Florida State more in the SEC where CBS owns a tiny slither of product when you can fully own them form less money by keeping them in the ACC. That is why the ACC will never be raided by the SEC unless another FOX backed conference has breached ACC security and ESPN is looking to shelter product in another of its properties.

The ACC gives ESPN some of the best basketball in the Northeast, the best basketball on the Mid Atlantic, and the rest of the best football property in the Southeast to go along with what they have assembled in the SEC.

The scheduling alliance is how the Mouse intends to maximize content. Let the best basketball in the ACC schedule games with L.S.U., Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky and Missouri and your content value goes way up. Let Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech schedule games with the SEC and the content goes way up and almost all of the profits stay in house. Between the two ESPN owns the best college basketball, arguably the best college football, and 2/3rds of the best college baseball in the nation.

So when realignment happens again another reason the Big 12 will be on the menu is that both FOX and ESPN have property interest in the Big 12. Texas is beholden to the Mouse and Kansas to a lesser extent. Oklahoma is beholden to FOX in about the same amount that Kansas is beholden to ESPN. The rest have T3 rights that are small enough to be bought out easily. Neither FOX nor ESPN own any of the PAC they lease that product. So if, or when, realignment breaks out again it will be ESPN trying to land Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virgnia, and perhaps Oklahoma State in either the SEC or ACC. Those are the 5 most profitable properties of the Big 12.

If for instance ESPN lands Texas and Oklahoma they will own 7 of the 10 most valuable college programs in the nation, the most viewed conference, the conference with the best market footprint, and the conferences with the best product. That is the game and ESPN isn't going to let FOX sneak up on them again. So my money would be on the long term stability of the ACC and therefore upon a long term successful relationship with the SEC. Maybe there is eventually a team, maybe two that get swapped between them, maybe not. But the SEC and ACC will both remain sheltered because nothing would please ESPN any more than to have another ACC vs SEC national championship game in football or a Kentucky vs Duke or Florida vs Syracuse final in the NCAA tournament.

When the Big 12 GOR is up the money will be for moves not for stasis and that's when this all gets resolved.

So the SEC isn't raiding the ACC and the Big 10 won't be raiding them either. If Delany wants AAU schools on the coast he's going to have to find them in California and Washington.

Nominated.

To the OP -- you realize that the B1G actually (through unofficial channels) targeted UNC and UVA, and the best they could come up with was Maryland, right?

It's all about "location, location". The ACC is sitting on top of prime real estate (huge demographics and lots of TV sets), while the B1G schools are located in states with declining population. That is the motivation behind the B1G wanting to expand South, and Jim Delaney even stated as much 4-5 years ago.

ESPN, by shoring up its properties (ACC, SEC, Texas and Kansas) and creating scheduling alliances, is pretty much blocking any southern expansion by the B1G.

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  This thread is laughable. Everyone does realize the ACC houses the football national champ and is welcoming the defending basketball champ?

The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

Big 12 dies when Texas or Oklahoma leaves.

(02-10-2014 05:40 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

Big 12 dies when Texas or Oklahoma leaves.

Don't hold your breath waiting. Nobody is going anywhere for a decade at least.

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

Why the fixation on 1998 forward?

(02-10-2014 06:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

Why the fixation on 1998 forward?

Well, we all know why ACC fans want to forget about the BCS era. Don't we?

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The best ACC teams are all imports. They're the only P5 conference where that's the case. That includes FSU, who were only invited to keep the ACC from being relegated to the sidelines in football.

That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

To be fair, many of the BIG EAST's victories were earned by teams that are now in the ACC.

(02-10-2014 06:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 06:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

Why the fixation on 1998 forward?

Well, we all know why ACC fans want to forget about the BCS era. Don't we?

No, the question was why your fixation on just small unit of time instead of say the ACC entire history, including the twenty years after the SEC pulled out of the Southern Conference. The core of the ACC has been together since 1921. It's been 80 years since the SEC left and over that 80 years the ACC teams in the conference have played in about 30 major bowls. From the time the SEC pulled out until the time Duke managed to deemphasize ACC football in 1962 ACC teams played in 15 major bowls over 30 years - Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange.

It was the deemphasis from 1962 that killed ACC football for 15 years.

Maryland, Clemson, GT, FSU all won national titles in the 50's, 80's, and 90's.

You are just cherry picking a time period when two of the ACC's top teams were in the toilet for the better part of a decade because it supports your argument. When the window of time is expanded your argument greatly weakens.

But then again, who ever said the ACC was ever the top football conference. How could the ACC be the top conference with such small schools and such small stadiums as compared to the SEC or B10?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the ACC team's records in the Big 4 bowls over the last 80 years is not great (18-24). That record is 7-8 from 1933 (when the SEC teams left) until 1962 - the year Duke passed the 800 SAT rule - Duke played in the Cotton Bowl that year. For the next 30 years the ACC played in just three major bowls, an Orange, a Cotton, and a Sugar bowl and went 1-2. From the time the ACC expanded to 9 with FSU, that record is 10-14 (perhaps this is why the BCS era is so important, it tosses out 5 FSU wins in six years).

But the fact of the matter is that the ACC has been in place over 80 years and it's not going to collapse no matter how much folks from West Va., would like it to collapse.

(02-10-2014 05:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 10:47 PM)Star City Hokie Wrote:  The only way to kill the ACC is for the SEC to invite Florida State and Clemson. Thats it.

The Virginia schools and North Carolina schools are already in their #1 choice of conference and are completely happy.

Well that's not going to happen. If the SEC had wanted them they would have gotten them almost 2 years ago. So the question is why didn't the SEC want them? Because the SEC is almost owned by ESPN and the ACC is owned by ESPN and ESPN isn't going to waste an open slot by moving one of its properties to another of its properties when Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are not fully in one of their camps. The game is about product acquisition by the networks. They pay for the moves. Why pay Florida State more in the SEC where CBS owns a tiny slither of product when you can fully own them form less money by keeping them in the ACC. That is why the ACC will never be raided by the SEC unless another FOX backed conference has breached ACC security and ESPN is looking to shelter product in another of its properties.

The ACC gives ESPN some of the best basketball in the Northeast, the best basketball on the Mid Atlantic, and the rest of the best football property in the Southeast to go along with what they have assembled in the SEC.

The scheduling alliance is how the Mouse intends to maximize content. Let the best basketball in the ACC schedule games with L.S.U., Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky and Missouri and your content value goes way up. Let Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech schedule games with the SEC and the content goes way up and almost all of the profits stay in house. Between the two ESPN owns the best college basketball, arguably the best college football, and 2/3rds of the best college baseball in the nation.

So when realignment happens again another reason the Big 12 will be on the menu is that both FOX and ESPN have property interest in the Big 12. Texas is beholden to the Mouse and Kansas to a lesser extent. Oklahoma is beholden to FOX in about the same amount that Kansas is beholden to ESPN. The rest have T3 rights that are small enough to be bought out easily. Neither FOX nor ESPN own any of the PAC they lease that product. So if, or when, realignment breaks out again it will be ESPN trying to land Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virgnia, and perhaps Oklahoma State in either the SEC or ACC. Those are the 5 most profitable properties of the Big 12.

If for instance ESPN lands Texas and Oklahoma they will own 7 of the 10 most valuable college programs in the nation, the most viewed conference, the conference with the best market footprint, and the conferences with the best product. That is the game and ESPN isn't going to let FOX sneak up on them again. So my money would be on the long term stability of the ACC and therefore upon a long term successful relationship with the SEC. Maybe there is eventually a team, maybe two that get swapped between them, maybe not. But the SEC and ACC will both remain sheltered because nothing would please ESPN any more than to have another ACC vs SEC national championship game in football or a Kentucky vs Duke or Florida vs Syracuse final in the NCAA tournament.

When the Big 12 GOR is up the money will be for moves not for stasis and that's when this all gets resolved.

So the SEC isn't raiding the ACC and the Big 10 won't be raiding them either. If Delany wants AAU schools on the coast he's going to have to find them in California and Washington.

Nominated.

To the OP -- you realize that the B1G actually (through unofficial channels) targeted UNC and UVA, and the best they could come up with was Maryland, right?

It's all about "location, location". The ACC is sitting on top of prime real estate (huge demographics and lots of TV sets), while the B1G schools are located in states with declining population. That is the motivation behind the B1G wanting to expand South, and Jim Delaney even stated as much 4-5 years ago.

ESPN, by shoring up its properties (ACC, SEC, Texas and Kansas) and creating scheduling alliances, is pretty much blocking any southern expansion by the B1G.

It's even more than just real estate and TV's, its about representation in the house through congressmen and women who are looking out for the interests of the schools in their districts. But truly nobody can get there without a paycheck from the networks to cover it. Right now all of the talk about projected contracts and such is just unrealized spin. The last few moves will either level the playing field or tilt it out of proportion leading to further moves in a couple of decades. I like the positions of the ACC and SEC much more than those of our competition. And as long as we work in concert the likelihood of landing a couple if not all of the brands remaining is pretty good as well. Texas and Oklahoma will have to leave without many friends to play at great distance out way outside the travel radius of their average fan if they choose the Big 10 or PAC.

(02-10-2014 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

To be fair, many of the BIG EAST's victories were earned by teams that are now in the ACC.

To be specific, Miami (3 times) and Louisville (twice). Much of the ACC's problems in the BCS can be laid at the door of Miami, which has never represented us in a BCS bowl, and Bobby Bowden, whose ego caused him to hang on way too long in his quest to have more wins than Joe Paterno. That didn't work out well for Penn State, either.

Instead, we were represented more often by VaTech, which played in 8 such games between their time in both leagues, losing 6 of them (counting three Bowl Coalition games).

(02-10-2014 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 05:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense. The entire Big 12 is imports from the SWC, Big 8, Big East, Mountain West.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Big 12 is really the Big 8, which they took great pains to avoid saying. In which case Texas is an import.

There's nothing relevant there.

The B12 is a conference that was built by combining the Big 8 with the best of the SWC. It's a whole new conference, whereas the ACC just keeps adding, hoping to become relevant someday.

Only you could propose that a conference that was pieced together out of the parts of two non-viable conferences (of which they lost a full third) is somehow by virtue of that birth stronger than a conference that has been around fifty years, and added valuable parts from other conferences along the way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.

And I don't think the Big 12 is unstable. But the idea that it is somehow MORE stable by virtue of the fact that it was formed out of two conferences that disbanded, lost a third of it's membership, and then added two more teams, one from a non-BCS conference, makes it defacto more stable than the ACC, that's just crazy talk.

Somehow, losing four teams and adding two over 20 years is rock solid. Adding seven teams (three of which have national titles since 1980) and losing two over 50 years is unstable. Yeah, ok.

And what was the ACC's BCS bowl record again - 5-13?

During the BCS era, no power conference was worse, and that includes Big East football, which went 8-7 during the BCS era.

To be fair, many of the BIG EAST's victories were earned by teams that are now in the ACC.

Actually, half of those wins came from WVU (3) and UofL (1). Those 2 schools went 4-0 in the BCS as Big East teams.

On the other hand, Miami went 3-1 as a Big East member in BCS bowls (no ACC appearances), while VT is 1-5 in BCS bowls (all ACC appearances are losses).

Bit, Your Mountaineer's are putting a Major hurting on #11 Iowa St. Tonight.

(02-10-2014 08:37 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Bit, Your Mountaineer's are putting a Major hurting on #11 Iowa St. Tonight.

Putting on a show for sure. Old Big East (all sports members) are having a great year in basketball. I hope you guys finish the season strong and get a tourney bid. Always been a fan of WVU basketball.

Cute thread. Haven't seen one of these before...

(02-10-2014 08:45 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:37 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Bit, Your Mountaineer's are putting a Major hurting on #11 Iowa St. Tonight.

Putting on a show for sure. Old Big East (all sports members) are having a great year in basketball. I hope you guys finish the season strong and get a tourney bid. Always been a fan of WVU basketball.

WVU has been getting better all season. We were in the Kansas game until the very end, at the Phog. Except for the 2 games immediately following the first OSU game, WVU has been in every game this season.

The Mountaineers will be even better next season too. We get everyone back, and add 4 more players.

I think espn should aim for an 18 team sec and acc. Get a rule change for a 3 team, 2 game football playoff for each league with the champs to meet in a bowl.

SEC
A: UK, UT, Vandy, UGA, SCar, UF
B: Ala, Aub, Ole Miss, Msu, LSU, TA&M
C: Tex, T Tech, OU, Ok state, Ark, Missouri

football format 5-2-2


ACC
A: BC,Uconn, Pitt, Wvu, Cuse, ND
B: Uva, Vtech, Unc, Duke, Nc State, Wake
C: Cincy, Lville, Clem, GTech, FSU, Miami

football format 5-1-1.

The ACC probably made it past it's danger point and put the cross-hairs back on the B12 at this point. ESPN obviously wants them to survive because it keeps upping it's payout to the ACC. I think the ACC will survive because most of the schools are happy to be there; however, this is a speculation post so here it is. If the ACC dies, I see it happening differently.

Texas will stick with the B12 as long as it is viable because it likes being the king of it's conference and has political baggage from smaller Texas schools. IF (ND fans don't go crazy) ND ever joins a conference in full it will want to be the same. Both schools will want more control than they can get in any current conference. I think if the ACC dies (or dies as a power conference) it will be because ND and UT decide to form their own conference from schools mostly from the B12 and ACC. UT and ND have developed a close relationship the last decade or so. Dodds is on record that starting a new conference was discussed before. Link to video see 1:10 on.

Both the B12 and ACC GoR end within a couple years of each other. If UT and ND went to the networks and said they were going to form their own conference with some of the most valuable schools from the ACC and B12 (and maybe several from other conferences/independents) there would be a bidding war for the rights. All the B12 schools and I think most of the ACC schools would be willing to join or at least consider joining seriously. If enough ACC schools left then the core NC and VA schools would have to consider joining or going to the B1G or SEC. This would allow them control of the new conference while cutting out a lot of the deadweight and duplication of the ACC and B12 that a full merger might include.

For example something like this 12 school core (though some schools might be different especially if UNC and UVA wanted to be included) that could be expanded to 16 or 20 or even larger (see link):

East
Notre Dame
FSU
Miami
Clemson
GT
WVU/Pitt
(if you go past 12, add another 2-4 schools from the ACC or eastern AAC probably based on ND preferences)

West
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
TTU
OSU
BYU
(if you go past 12, add another 2-4 schools from the B12 or western AAC probably based on UT's preferences)

They might even be able to lure a team or two from other power conferences as well IMO.