(04-23-2014 10:43 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:30 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  For most schools, the definition of success is not winning or only money from the conference TV deal. It is exposure and name recognition.

As Susan Herbst at UConn keeps saying, "Athletics is the front porch of the university." Athletics are what give your school national exposure and brand name recognition. Televised games help to serve as free advertising and marketing for a school. This can help to attract a higher performing student body that comes from more corners of the world. It can also help to attract better professors and faculty. In the end, this all leads to more money on an academic level due to more advanced research, etc.

So, if you are a large state school, you may not settle for just the exposure and money at the expense of winning. However, some state schools (like Colorado) just don't seem to care about winning. However, for a smaller private school like Boston College or Wake Forest, it is all about the exposure. Winning is secondary. A BC-Clemson football game or a Wake-UNC basketball game gets these smaller institutions eyeballs when they play a big State U on national television. Without the benefit of a power conference and the big name opponents that it offers, these smaller schools wouldn't even be in the national conversation. The fact that the ACC makes these schools relevant is success enough.

A semi-OT question:

I always thought that UConn would have been a perfect fit for the ACC, moreso than Louisville or Cincy who I thought would have made great partners for WVU in the Big 12.

What were the reasons UConn was passed over by the ACC?

UConn was passed over for Louisville because:
- men's bball under Calhoun suspended for low APR (bad timing)
- Pasqualoni was driving football into the ground (bad timing)
- BC blocked UConn for "turf" reasons
- Outside of FSU and Clemson, ACC football is terrible, so FSU and Clemson wanted a program that was also currently strong (Louisville) to prop up the league
- Louisville football was winning under Charlie Strong (they rebounded from the Kragthorpe years, who was their Pasqualoni)
- Louisville basketball is a money making machine and is the top grossing bball program
- the ACC was worried that the Big 12 could take Louisville. They figured that they could always come back later for UConn, but had to grab Louisville while they could

(04-23-2014 10:59 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:43 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:30 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  For most schools, the definition of success is not winning or only money from the conference TV deal. It is exposure and name recognition.

As Susan Herbst at UConn keeps saying, "Athletics is the front porch of the university." Athletics are what give your school national exposure and brand name recognition. Televised games help to serve as free advertising and marketing for a school. This can help to attract a higher performing student body that comes from more corners of the world. It can also help to attract better professors and faculty. In the end, this all leads to more money on an academic level due to more advanced research, etc.

So, if you are a large state school, you may not settle for just the exposure and money at the expense of winning. However, some state schools (like Colorado) just don't seem to care about winning. However, for a smaller private school like Boston College or Wake Forest, it is all about the exposure. Winning is secondary. A BC-Clemson football game or a Wake-UNC basketball game gets these smaller institutions eyeballs when they play a big State U on national television. Without the benefit of a power conference and the big name opponents that it offers, these smaller schools wouldn't even be in the national conversation. The fact that the ACC makes these schools relevant is success enough.

A semi-OT question:

I always thought that UConn would have been a perfect fit for the ACC, moreso than Louisville or Cincy who I thought would have made great partners for WVU in the Big 12.

What were the reasons UConn was passed over by the ACC?

UConn was passed over for Louisville because:
- men's bball under Calhoun suspended for low APR (bad timing)
- Pasqualoni was driving football into the ground (bad timing)
- BC blocked UConn for "turf" reasons
- Outside of FSU and Clemson, ACC football is terrible, so FSU and Clemson wanted a program that was also currently strong (Louisville) to prop up the league
- Louisville football was winning under Charlie Strong (they rebounded from the Kragthorpe years, who was their Pasqualoni)
- Louisville basketball is a money making machine and is the top grossing bball program
- the ACC was worried that the Big 12 could take Louisville. They figured that they could always come back later for UConn, but had to grab Louisville while they could

good write up:

i would also add facilities/athletic budget. what gets overlooked is that louisville invested heavily in this area since 2003. More so than any other g5 school.

They didn't just build them to get to X capacity. they built them to look NICE and built them to be major money makers.

huge props to the ville administrators because they had the foresight to realize that luxury > total capacity in the early 2000s ==> something that most college administrators didn't realize until 3-4 years ago

We are also a "bridge" to ND for the ACC.

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

They are not doing any worse in the PAC 12 then they were the last 10 years in the Big 12, only they have more money. That's at worst a wash

(04-23-2014 09:14 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

Actually, he's not sugar coating you, you just have a bad memory. In 13 years in the Big East, VPI had double digit wins 5 times. When they entered the ACC, they had double digit wins each of their first EIGHT years. They were only national title contenders once in the Big East, back in 1999, same number of times as they were in the ACC (2005). Meanwhile when in the Big East, Virginia Tech won the ACC 3 times. They have won the ACC 4 times, and won their division 6 times, in ten seasons.

To say they are somehow worse since the move... I don't even know what to say.

For the record, on the field, Boston College football has actually done better since the move. They won three divisional titles in a row, after never winning the league in the Big East (and only winning five games once).

(04-23-2014 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

They are not doing any worse in the PAC 12 then they were the last 10 years in the Big 12, only they have more money. That's at worst a wash

(04-23-2014 09:14 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

Actually, he's not sugar coating you, you just have a bad memory. In 13 years in the Big East, VPI had double digit wins 5 times. When they entered the ACC, they had double digit wins each of their first EIGHT years. They were only national title contenders once in the Big East, back in 1999, same number of times as they were in the ACC (2005). Meanwhile when in the Big East, Virginia Tech won the ACC 3 times. They have won the ACC 4 times, and won their division 6 times, in ten seasons.

To say they are somehow worse since the move... I don't even know what to say.

For the record, on the field, Boston College football has actually done better since the move. They won three divisional titles in a row, after never winning the league in the Big East (and only winning five games once).

Correct on BC, but that was short lived. They are back to typical BE BC
Both Qb's that took them to the ACC title games are the on the falcons roster. Have not been able to duplicate that success or talent level.

(04-23-2014 12:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We are also a "bridge" to ND for the ACC.

I always get a chuckle when I see the empty outlines of Connecticut and New Jersey on that "Atlantic Coast" map knowing that Syracuse is actually located to the left of their "S" logo in New York state. The ACC really doesn't have a firm grasp on the NYC market. The Big Ten could easily corner it by adding UConn to go with Rutgers.

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

not one single team that ever flew the big east banner went to a bcs bolw game this year. to top that, a cusa transplant took the last big east autobid its first year in the AAC ahead of the big east leftover/soon to leaves.

The ACC is a weak league that makes more money than us (not counting FSU who cut through them all like butter). Nothing more.

This Thread =

(04-23-2014 12:49 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We are also a "bridge" to ND for the ACC.

I always get a chuckle when I see the empty outlines of Connecticut and New Jersey on that "Atlantic Coast" map knowing that Syracuse is actually located to the left of their "S" logo in New York state. The ACC really doesn't have a firm grasp on the NYC market. The Big Ten could easily corner it by adding UConn to go with Rutgers.

I always find it ironic that people blew a fuse when the Big East added TCU based off of geography when...
---The New Big East adds Creighton, which is in Omaha, NE, and nobody blinks
---The "Atlantic Coast Conference" adds Notre Dame, which in NW Indiana, AND Louisville, and nobody utters a word.
---The PAC adds in the University of Colorado...which is on the bloody east-slope of the Rocky Mountains, and everybody's good with it.
---The SEC adds the University of Missouri, a whole friggin' state that fought for the Union in the Civil War...Not to mention is on the wrong side of the Mississippi River... AND PUTS THEM IN THE "EAST" DIVISION. And people are OK with that.

Seriously, there was non-stop uproar about the issue on ESPN and the like when the Big East added in TCU. You half-way expected a federal "truth in advertising" investigation on the issue.

(04-23-2014 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

They are not doing any worse in the PAC 12 then they were the last 10 years in the Big 12, only they have more money. That's at worst a wash

(04-23-2014 09:14 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

Actually, he's not sugar coating you, you just have a bad memory. In 13 years in the Big East, VPI had double digit wins 5 times. When they entered the ACC, they had double digit wins each of their first EIGHT years. They were only national title contenders once in the Big East, back in 1999, same number of times as they were in the ACC (2005). Meanwhile when in the Big East, Virginia Tech won the ACC 3 times. They have won the ACC 4 times, and won their division 6 times, in ten seasons.

To say they are somehow worse since the move... I don't even know what to say.

For the record, on the field, Boston College football has actually done better since the move. They won three divisional titles in a row, after never winning the league in the Big East (and only winning five games once).

They were BE co-champs in 2004
Never won acc, but played in title games twice, must have lost tiebreaker on one of those divisional championships
2004-2008 glory years at BC, won at least nine games every year

I think half the league were co-champs in 2004 in the BE.

Seeing as so many on these boards think UMass is a sure-thing, I'm surprised the ACC hasn't jumped on them to give Boston College a friend to play with...

(04-23-2014 09:13 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  I have a feeling that the ACC will turn into a conference with a handfull of average teams (UNC, Miami, VT, GT, UL etc)

(04-23-2014 02:15 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Seeing as so many on these boards think UMass is a sure-thing, I'm surprised the ACC hasn't jumped on them to give Boston College a friend to play with...

The only thing that is a sure thing with UMass is mediocrity.

(04-23-2014 12:58 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  This Thread =

Just curious. With that schedule and a new coaching staff, what do you see UL doing next year? 8-4 (5-3) sound about right give or take 1 win?

This is a worthless thread, IMHO.

(04-23-2014 02:18 PM)HRFlossY Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:13 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  I have a feeling that the ACC will turn into a conference with a handfull of average teams (UNC, Miami, VT, GT, UL etc)

Can UCF signup to be an average team making $20 million a year with good bowl games?

This thread is useless. Plenty of bad ACC programs have been doing great, despite mediocre performance. They are all so much better off it's not even funny. Schools like Wake Forest and BC would be DOA if they had to play in AAC. But in the ACC they will get the cash to endure.

A mediocre year in the ACC gets you to the Compass Bowl, a mediocre year in the AAC gets you a bowl game in Haiti or something.

(04-23-2014 03:05 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  This thread is useless. Plenty of bad ACC programs have been doing great, despite mediocre performance. They are all so much better off it's not even funny. Schools like Wake Forest and BC would be DOA if they had to play in AAC. But in the ACC they will get the cash to endure.

A mediocre year in the ACC gets you to the Compass Bowl, a mediocre year in the AAC gets you a bowl game in Haiti or something.

HAHA!!!! Yes, it is just a matter of time until Mike Aresco puffs out his chest and proudly announces the creation of the "Port-au-Prince Bowl" that will pit an AAC team against another Sun Belt team.

(04-23-2014 03:17 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:05 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  This thread is useless. Plenty of bad ACC programs have been doing great, despite mediocre performance. They are all so much better off it's not even funny. Schools like Wake Forest and BC would be DOA if they had to play in AAC. But in the ACC they will get the cash to endure.

A mediocre year in the ACC gets you to the Compass Bowl, a mediocre year in the AAC gets you a bowl game in Haiti or something.

HAHA!!!! Yes, it is just a matter of time until Mike Aresco puffs out his chest and proudly announces the addition of the University of Port au Prince to the AAC.

FYP