(07-01-2014 11:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:01 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I wouldn't write off MD in basketball yet...still TBD if the kids in Maryland will embrace B1G Hoops. The ACC/BE had been picking over Maryland for Hoops recruits for decades.

Maryland can and will be back...way too much talent in that area and Maryland has a very good Basketball Tradition.

DC/Maryland are good sports fans. I think BiG got a good team in Maryalnd. But ACC still remains strong in the DC market with Virginia and Virginia Tech.

Congrats to Louisville and ACC. ACC picks up a very, very strong program in the Cards in both football and basketball. With ACC's addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse, the affiliation with ND, and the football revival of Clemson and Florida State, ACC has set itself up for the future in a very big way.

The addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse and the ND affiliation more than makes up for the loss of Maryland.

It would not surprise me that someday that Maryland and Rutgers find their way back to ACC. That would happen if Notre Dame joined ACC as a full football member. It could happen anyway.

UVA is just a complete afterthought quite frankly in DC area. VT is 1000 times stronger in DC despite being much further away than UVA.

There is no chance Maryland and Rutgers go back to the ACC. NONE. Not when they are in the #1 money conference in the country now.

Rutgers was never in the ACC, but your main point stands.

I wish Rutgers and Maryland well, but I see them as being similar to Purdue, Indiana and Illinois as far as Big Ten football success goes (at least for the near future).

The B10 is a lot more than athletic conference.
Its research grants and academic status add greatly to both Rutgers and Maryland.Rutgers athleticly needs to get rid of what Greg Schiano left behind on his way to Tampa Kyle Flood and replace him with a real big time coach.

(07-03-2014 06:27 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 11:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  Maryland can and will be back...way too much talent in that area and Maryland has a very good Basketball Tradition.

DC/Maryland are good sports fans. I think BiG got a good team in Maryalnd. But ACC still remains strong in the DC market with Virginia and Virginia Tech.

Congrats to Louisville and ACC. ACC picks up a very, very strong program in the Cards in both football and basketball. With ACC's addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse, the affiliation with ND, and the football revival of Clemson and Florida State, ACC has set itself up for the future in a very big way.

The addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse and the ND affiliation more than makes up for the loss of Maryland.

It would not surprise me that someday that Maryland and Rutgers find their way back to ACC. That would happen if Notre Dame joined ACC as a full football member. It could happen anyway.

UVA is just a complete afterthought quite frankly in DC area. VT is 1000 times stronger in DC despite being much further away than UVA.

There is no chance Maryland and Rutgers go back to the ACC. NONE. Not when they are in the #1 money conference in the country now.

Rutgers was never in the ACC, but your main point stands.

I wish Rutgers and Maryland well, but I see them as being similar to Purdue, Indiana and Illinois as far as Big Ten football success goes (at least for the near future).

The B10 is a lot more than athletic conference.
Its research grants and academic status add greatly to both Rutgers and Maryland.Rutgers athleticly needs to get rid of what Greg Schiano left behind on his way to Tampa Kyle Flood and replace him with a real big time coach.

I actually like Coach Flood...he and the current administration are doing an awesome job for opening up NJ to all schools to recruit there. I remember the Rutgers fans telling me he was a much better coach than Coach Marrone and Shafer. I believe them and support the current regime in New Brunswick.

(07-03-2014 06:27 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 11:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 10:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  Maryland can and will be back...way too much talent in that area and Maryland has a very good Basketball Tradition.

DC/Maryland are good sports fans. I think BiG got a good team in Maryalnd. But ACC still remains strong in the DC market with Virginia and Virginia Tech.

Congrats to Louisville and ACC. ACC picks up a very, very strong program in the Cards in both football and basketball. With ACC's addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse, the affiliation with ND, and the football revival of Clemson and Florida State, ACC has set itself up for the future in a very big way.

The addition of Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse and the ND affiliation more than makes up for the loss of Maryland.

It would not surprise me that someday that Maryland and Rutgers find their way back to ACC. That would happen if Notre Dame joined ACC as a full football member. It could happen anyway.

UVA is just a complete afterthought quite frankly in DC area. VT is 1000 times stronger in DC despite being much further away than UVA.

There is no chance Maryland and Rutgers go back to the ACC. NONE. Not when they are in the #1 money conference in the country now.

Rutgers was never in the ACC, but your main point stands.

I wish Rutgers and Maryland well, but I see them as being similar to Purdue, Indiana and Illinois as far as Big Ten football success goes (at least for the near future).

The B10 is a lot more than athletic conference.
Its research grants and academic status add greatly to both Rutgers and Maryland.Rutgers athleticly needs to get rid of what Greg Schiano left behind on his way to Tampa Kyle Flood and replace him with a real big time coach.

Given all the turmoil of conference reconfiguration of the recent past, nothing in the future should surprise. FWIW, Maryland and Washington, DC have always identified with the east. All the DC colleges consider themselves and identify with the east.

Their alums do not go to Omaha, Minneapolis, Chicago, or Detroit so much as they go to NYC, Boston, Philly, and DC. THen too, eastern folks retire in the warm geography and beaches and mountains of the lower eastern seaboard, from North Carolina on down to Florida. For those alum living in those areas, having Maryland and Rutgers coming down to North Charolina, Florida, etc would probably be something favored by them.

In this world of surprises, it would not surprise that, some day, Rutgers and Maryland end up in ACC.

I think there is a natural tug for Maryland and Rutgers to be eastern oriented. Perhaps the B1G configuration is good enough to serve that purpose. For Rutgers, getting into a BCS conference is automatically going to illicit support and loyalty.

Many of my Maryland U friends and colleagues had very mixed emotions about leaving ACC. I can't quote a percentage here but it certainly wasn't unanimous, that's for sure.

If it was the old ACC most of Maryland would have been against it. But fact is that the 2014 ACC is nothing close to the old ACC. Not with last year Syracuse, Pitt, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, and BC in fb and ND in other sports. The problem for the ACC, maybe moreso than any of the other conferences that expanded, is that the league is now far different than it used to be. ACC this year will have 6/14 schools that have been in the league less than 10 years(in bb 7/15). Compare to SEC with only 2/14 that you could say that about. Pac 12 2/12. Big Ten 3/14. Big 12 2/10.

And, yes it would be a MAJOR shock if Rutgers and Maryland wind up in the ACC. Like someone said it's been nearly 70 years since someone left the Big Ten- and that wasn't for another conference. For Rutgers and Maryland to go to the ACC, the ACC would have to pass the Big Ten in money. That just isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon- and likely never will.

(07-01-2014 09:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:


http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...acc-063014

I think these types of opinion pieces -- while completely predictable -- should be taken a grain of salt. Or maybe even a boulder of salt.

As a Louisville fan, it sure is nice to read stuff like this. But the reality of college athletics is, everything is cyclical. We've had a lot of successes lately, but it's not that long ago when we were enduring some struggles. Kragthorpe couldn't have done worse if he tried, and many in our fanbase had thought Pitino had lost his touch and should retire.

I think that Maryland will do fine in the Big Ten. And that the Big Ten will find success cracking the markets on the eastern seaboard that they clearly covet. That is what many people would call a win-win for those parties involved.

(I also think that Rutgers could honestly explode. Rutgers coaches are now armed with the Big Ten affiliation that schools like Penn State used against them in recruiting battles so vital to building a consistent winner. And let's face it -- the Big Ten, while good, isn't THAT daunting.)

Sure the ACC may be "winning" the PR part of this now, given Louisville's successes throughout their program. But it is going to take consistent results, from multiple schools in the conference, for the ACC to truly stake a claim. The SEC can boast football superiority because multiple schools have won the BCS championship game. Can the ACC raise their profile to do the same? Can ANY other conference do the same?


60 days until kickoff -- at least for Louisville and Miami. I'm already ready for the season to kick off.


.

(07-03-2014 08:50 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If it was the old ACC most of Maryland would have been against it. But fact is that the 2014 ACC is nothing close to the old ACC. Not with last year Syracuse, Pitt, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, and BC in fb and ND in other sports. The problem for the ACC, maybe moreso than any of the other conferences that expanded, is that the league is now far different than it used to be. ACC this year will have 6/14 schools that have been in the league less than 10 years(in bb 7/15). Compare to SEC with only 2/14 that you could say that about. Pac 12 2/12. Big Ten 3/14. Big 12 2/10.

And, yes it would be a MAJOR shock if Rutgers and Maryland wind up in the ACC. Like someone said it's been nearly 70 years since someone left the Big Ten- and that wasn't for another conference. For Rutgers and Maryland to go to the ACC, the ACC would have to pass the Big Ten in money. That just isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon- and likely never will.

Perhaps the true winners are Maryland and Rutgers, who can now play B1G versus ACC. There is a precedent for this. The MWC sweetened the pot for Boise State, and the Broncos stayed put in MWC rather than going with AAC.

Regarding the bolded statement above, I would not make that kind of statement, given that just about all of us were totally surprised by conference reconfiguration moves in these past few years. In my book, anything can happen. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(07-03-2014 09:06 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 09:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:


http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...acc-063014

I think these types of opinion pieces -- while completely predictable -- should be taken a grain of salt. Or maybe even a boulder of salt.

As a Louisville fan, it sure is nice to read stuff like this. But the reality of college athletics is, everything is cyclical. We've had a lot of successes lately, but it's not that long ago when we were enduring some struggles. Kragthorpe couldn't have done worse if he tried, and many in our fanbase had thought Pitino had lost his touch and should retire.

I think that Maryland will do fine in the Big Ten. And that the Big Ten will find success cracking the markets on the eastern seaboard that they clearly covet. That is what many people would call a win-win for those parties involved.

(I also think that Rutgers could honestly explode. Rutgers coaches are now armed with the Big Ten affiliation that schools like Penn State used against them in recruiting battles so vital to building a consistent winner. And let's face it -- the Big Ten, while good, isn't THAT daunting.)

Sure the ACC may be "winning" the PR part of this now, given Louisville's successes throughout their program. But it is going to take consistent results, from multiple schools in the conference, for the ACC to truly stake a claim. The SEC can boast football superiority because multiple schools have won the BCS championship game. Can the ACC raise their profile to do the same? Can ANY other conference do the same?


60 days until kickoff -- at least for Louisville and Miami. I'm already ready for the season to kick off..

That is what I am looking forward to...finally have a True Stable Home and now just Concentrate on the Court/Gridiron/Field....

(07-03-2014 09:12 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:50 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If it was the old ACC most of Maryland would have been against it. But fact is that the 2014 ACC is nothing close to the old ACC. Not with last year Syracuse, Pitt, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, and BC in fb and ND in other sports. The problem for the ACC, maybe moreso than any of the other conferences that expanded, is that the league is now far different than it used to be. ACC this year will have 6/14 schools that have been in the league less than 10 years(in bb 7/15). Compare to SEC with only 2/14 that you could say that about. Pac 12 2/12. Big Ten 3/14. Big 12 2/10.

And, yes it would be a MAJOR shock if Rutgers and Maryland wind up in the ACC. Like someone said it's been nearly 70 years since someone left the Big Ten- and that wasn't for another conference. For Rutgers and Maryland to go to the ACC, the ACC would have to pass the Big Ten in money. That just isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon- and likely never will.

Perhaps the true winners are Maryland and Rutgers, who can now play B1G versus ACC. There is a precedent for this. The MWC sweetened the pot for Boise State, and the Broncos stayed put in MWC rather than going with AAC.

Regarding the bolded statement above, I would not make that kind of statement, given that just about all of us were totally surprised by conference reconfiguration moves in these past few years. In my book, anything can happen. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The thing is, Boise happened before they actually had made the move. That's a HUGE difference...

Also, structurally, the Big Ten is so far ahead of the ACC, and historically has been- that it's just almost impossible to see the ACC catching up.

(07-03-2014 09:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:12 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:50 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If it was the old ACC most of Maryland would have been against it. But fact is that the 2014 ACC is nothing close to the old ACC. Not with last year Syracuse, Pitt, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, and BC in fb and ND in other sports. The problem for the ACC, maybe moreso than any of the other conferences that expanded, is that the league is now far different than it used to be. ACC this year will have 6/14 schools that have been in the league less than 10 years(in bb 7/15). Compare to SEC with only 2/14 that you could say that about. Pac 12 2/12. Big Ten 3/14. Big 12 2/10.

And, yes it would be a MAJOR shock if Rutgers and Maryland wind up in the ACC. Like someone said it's been nearly 70 years since someone left the Big Ten- and that wasn't for another conference. For Rutgers and Maryland to go to the ACC, the ACC would have to pass the Big Ten in money. That just isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon- and likely never will.

Perhaps the true winners are Maryland and Rutgers, who can now play B1G versus ACC. There is a precedent for this. The MWC sweetened the pot for Boise State, and the Broncos stayed put in MWC rather than going with AAC.

Regarding the bolded statement above, I would not make that kind of statement, given that just about all of us were totally surprised by conference reconfiguration moves in these past few years. In my book, anything can happen. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The thing is, Boise happened before they actually had made the move. That's a HUGE difference...

Also, structurally, the Big Ten is so far ahead of the ACC, and historically has been- that it's just almost impossible to see the ACC catching up.

Under Flood Rutgers will not explode but implode.He is rated as the 12th best hc in the B10 and his qb is rated 14th in in the B10.His recruiting is a mixture 2 and 3 star players.His ability to attract top notch coaching staff members is severly lacking.

My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

(07-03-2014 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of MD fans that are not happy with the move....especially the loss of BB games with the UNC's, Duke's, and UVA's.

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

This is true, the move was administration-initiated, but Stever is also correct that Maryland's feelings for the ACC had weakened (FWIW, i grew up 10 miles from College Park and know the MD culture very well). Thirty years ago Maryland's community would have been 100% against joining the B1G. But the past 10-20 years of expansion and football emphasis weakened that core identity which is why while there was a lot of lamentation among MD fans about the move, there wasn't an outright revolt. It was less anger and more an occasion for mourning what had been lost about ACC culture and the need to curry favor with the football gods.

Nobody at Maryland ever identified with FSU or Miami, or even VT or BC. That wasn't their daddy's ACC.

Maryland has basically tied its fate to Penn State. It won't leave B1G unless Penn State leaves first.

(07-03-2014 10:03 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of MD fans that are not happy with the move....especially the loss of BB games with the UNC's, Duke's, and UVA's.

I think that was the case initially, but the lawsuit and a lot of the statements out of the ACC office and other ACC schools have changed many minds. The Maryland fans I know hated the move at first but are now as anti-ACC as anyone can be.

(07-03-2014 10:12 AM)prp Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 10:03 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  There are a lot of MD fans that are not happy with the move....especially the loss of BB games with the UNC's, Duke's, and UVA's.

I think that was the case initially, but the lawsuit and a lot of the statements out of the ACC office and other ACC schools have changed many minds. The Maryland fans I know hated the move at first but are now as anti-ACC as anyone can be.

The two Maryland fans I know are definitely the category prp described.

(07-03-2014 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

This is true, but Stever is also correct that Maryland's feelings for the ACC had weakened (FWIW, i grew up 10 miles from College Park and know the MD culture very well). Thirty years ago Maryland's community would have been 100% against joining the B1G. But the past 10-20 years of expansion and football emphasis weakened that core identity which is why while there was a lot of lamentation among MD fans about the move, there wasn't an outright revolt. It was less anger and more an occasion for mourning what had been lost about ACC culture and the need to curry favor with the football gods.

Nobody at Maryland ever identified with FSU or Miami, or even VT or BC. That wasn't their daddy's ACC.

If you recall, there wasn't an opportunity to revolt. Kirwan basically nixed the idea of public notification and feedback. If the Maryland base had been given advance notice, I think there would've been an large outcry and a fundraising drive.

I don't think Marylander's appreciation for the ACC lessoned in recent years. The issue was Swofford's show of disrespect for Maryland and the realization that Maryland didn't have a true football rival in the ACC. Traditionally, Maryland's football rivals have been West Virginia and Navy.

(07-03-2014 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

It would have been a big mistake to cater to "old ACC" diehards, though.

"If it had been a lot closer to the old ACC" then the ACC would now be on the outside of the P5 club. FSU and the additions since then kept the ACC in the game. Preserving 1970s basketball nostalgia at all costs would have been fatal.

(07-03-2014 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

So they trade a half familiar ACC for a totally foreign B1G?

They are going from an Atlantic Seaboard Conference to a Mid-Atlantic to Midwest Conference.

Something doesn't compute. I hope they realize they went from outlier to outlier.

(07-03-2014 02:04 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My impression Stever: Most Maryland fans didn't want to join the B1G. It was the administration that wanted to.

I don't disagree. I do think however, if it had been a lot closer to the old ACC, the fans would have been far more upset about it than they have been.

So they trade a half familiar ACC for a totally foreign B1G?

They are going from an Atlantic Seaboard Conference to a Mid-Atlantic to Midwest Conference.

Something doesn't compute. I hope they realize they went from outlier to outlier.

My point is that the fans would have complained a whole heck of a lot more had the ACC still been in essence even close to the old ACC. There wasn't the outrage that a move like this would have had 20-25 years ago.