(04-20-2015 07:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:07 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 02:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I believe that adding BC at that time was a bad decision. Historically, they are only so-so in football, weaker than that in basketball, and bring no market of strategic importance to the ACC. Add that they were so far removed from the nearest ACC school (almost as far as Miami is from its nearest ACC opponent) and the choice doesn't look good.

When BC came in the league, they won their division two of their first four years in the league, and have had only 2 losing conference records in ten seasons. By comparison during that time Miami has zero division titles and 4 losing conference records during that time. Seems tome they did as good or better than could be reasonably expected.

Ad....good points. It always amazes me when I see comments like this regarding BC. Adding BC was a "bad decision"???

I have to at least rhetorically ask some of you guys...what is it that makes some posters here completely ignore the facts as they apply to BC??? Is it a Catholic thing? Again, is it a CATHOLIC thing???

Here are the facts...in the 10 seasons BC has played FB in the ACC, it has finished in the top half of the Conference from a W-L perspective. It has enjoyed 8 winning season out of the 10 it has played. As Ad mentioned, it has played in 2 ACCCGs. Miami has yet to play in one.

BC sits in the friggin 7th LARGEST media market in the country and has solid ratings in that market. I will be happy to post some of them YET AGAIN if people want. BC games are carried on the major New England sports cable network (NESN). You don't think that hasn't helped the ACC secure more revenue from TV and won't be a major factor if and when an ACCN is launched?

Sorry to be so direct. But honestly - if any other school had entered the ACC and had BC's level of-the-field performance and sat in the 7th largest media market, and had the decent ratings in said market that BC has had, I don't think these questions would be asked! So, I scratch my head and ask myself what is unique to BC that makes these type of questions come up continually? Hence my rhetorical question.

I'll probably get a hostile response, but I'll answer the question. This is my opinion.

Yes - football is king in college sports. BC has done well and played in many bowl games, but the problem is that they haven't played in a high-profile bowl game in quite some time. Everyday fans/general spectators don't remember who played in or won the Music City Bowl/Kraft Hunger Bowl/etc. They remember who played in the National Championship (now CFP) or BCS bowls (now NY6 Bowls).

Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Purdue, Colorado, and Washington State have all appeared in high-profile bowls more recently than BC.

It also doesn't help that BC is a non-factor when it comes to the #2 and #3 nationwide most followed sports after football (MBB & WBB).

Bowl wins are nice. So is winning the NIT Tournament. Basically you had a good season, but no one's gonna remember it outside your own fanbase.

Boston College may not have the academics like Boston U. Boston U. is a AAU, but if they re-add football, they might get a Big 10 invite. U.Mass. is closer to that goal than Boston College. U. Mass. is a public flagship school that all but Northwestern are. Northwestern could be a victim of the FCOA and may back out of the Big 10.

The Big Ten will cover for Northwestern unless another worthy Private can be found to replace Northwestern. Perhaps you are unaware of how necessary it is for these conferences to have that one Private school so that they don't have to have all of their business publicized.

PAC- Stanford
Big Ten- Northwestern
SEC - Vanderbilt

The big 12 used to operate by the same rule when it just had Baylor. Now it has two because it had limited options for getting back to 10 programs.

(04-20-2015 07:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:07 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 02:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I believe that adding BC at that time was a bad decision. Historically, they are only so-so in football, weaker than that in basketball, and bring no market of strategic importance to the ACC. Add that they were so far removed from the nearest ACC school (almost as far as Miami is from its nearest ACC opponent) and the choice doesn't look good.

When BC came in the league, they won their division two of their first four years in the league, and have had only 2 losing conference records in ten seasons. By comparison during that time Miami has zero division titles and 4 losing conference records during that time. Seems tome they did as good or better than could be reasonably expected.

Ad....good points. It always amazes me when I see comments like this regarding BC. Adding BC was a "bad decision"???

I have to at least rhetorically ask some of you guys...what is it that makes some posters here completely ignore the facts as they apply to BC??? Is it a Catholic thing? Again, is it a CATHOLIC thing???

Here are the facts...in the 10 seasons BC has played FB in the ACC, it has finished in the top half of the Conference from a W-L perspective. It has enjoyed 8 winning season out of the 10 it has played. As Ad mentioned, it has played in 2 ACCCGs. Miami has yet to play in one.

BC sits in the friggin 7th LARGEST media market in the country and has solid ratings in that market. I will be happy to post some of them YET AGAIN if people want. BC games are carried on the major New England sports cable network (NESN). You don't think that hasn't helped the ACC secure more revenue from TV and won't be a major factor if and when an ACCN is launched?

Sorry to be so direct. But honestly - if any other school had entered the ACC and had BC's level of-the-field performance and sat in the 7th largest media market, and had the decent ratings in said market that BC has had, I don't think these questions would be asked! So, I scratch my head and ask myself what is unique to BC that makes these type of questions come up continually? Hence my rhetorical question.

I'll probably get a hostile response, but I'll answer the question. This is my opinion.

Yes - football is king in college sports. BC has done well and played in many bowl games, but the problem is that they haven't played in a high-profile bowl game in quite some time. Everyday fans/general spectators don't remember who played in or won the Music City Bowl/Kraft Hunger Bowl/etc. They remember who played in the National Championship (now CFP) or BCS bowls (now NY6 Bowls).

Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Purdue, Colorado, and Washington State have all appeared in high-profile bowls more recently than BC.

It also doesn't help that BC is a non-factor when it comes to the #2 and #3 nationwide most followed sports after football (MBB & WBB).

Bowl wins are nice. So is winning the NIT Tournament. Basically you had a good season, but no one's gonna remember it outside your own fanbase.

Boston College may not have the academics like Boston U. Boston U. is a AAU, but if they re-add football, they might get a Big 10 invite. U.Mass. is closer to that goal than Boston College. U. Mass. is a public flagship school that all but Northwestern are. Northwestern could be a victim of the FCOA and may back out of the Big 10.

Couple of thoughts. First, BC "has academics" like BU. BC is 31st in the USNWR rankings compared to 42nd for BU. Note that there are no Catholic universities in the AAU. It's not about the quality of the academics. Most Catholic universities are simply not as research oriented as AAU members. However, Georgetown and Notre Dame are both rated RU/VH by the Carnegie Foundation, which is a good proxy for AAU membership, and are not members.

Regarding the wisdom of the ACC's invitation of BC, I don't think the on the field performance is a good measure. I agree with the comments about BC not delivering the Boston market. BC is very much a niche in the Boston sports market. It does not have the broad appeal of some other private schools, such as USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Syracuse or Stanford. It is really more akin to a Northwestern, Vanderbilt or TCU. There is clearly room, though, for some number of schools like these in P5 conferences.

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 07:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:07 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 02:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  When BC came in the league, they won their division two of their first four years in the league, and have had only 2 losing conference records in ten seasons. By comparison during that time Miami has zero division titles and 4 losing conference records during that time. Seems tome they did as good or better than could be reasonably expected.

Ad....good points. It always amazes me when I see comments like this regarding BC. Adding BC was a "bad decision"???

I have to at least rhetorically ask some of you guys...what is it that makes some posters here completely ignore the facts as they apply to BC??? Is it a Catholic thing? Again, is it a CATHOLIC thing???

Here are the facts...in the 10 seasons BC has played FB in the ACC, it has finished in the top half of the Conference from a W-L perspective. It has enjoyed 8 winning season out of the 10 it has played. As Ad mentioned, it has played in 2 ACCCGs. Miami has yet to play in one.

BC sits in the friggin 7th LARGEST media market in the country and has solid ratings in that market. I will be happy to post some of them YET AGAIN if people want. BC games are carried on the major New England sports cable network (NESN). You don't think that hasn't helped the ACC secure more revenue from TV and won't be a major factor if and when an ACCN is launched?

Sorry to be so direct. But honestly - if any other school had entered the ACC and had BC's level of-the-field performance and sat in the 7th largest media market, and had the decent ratings in said market that BC has had, I don't think these questions would be asked! So, I scratch my head and ask myself what is unique to BC that makes these type of questions come up continually? Hence my rhetorical question.

I'll probably get a hostile response, but I'll answer the question. This is my opinion.

Yes - football is king in college sports. BC has done well and played in many bowl games, but the problem is that they haven't played in a high-profile bowl game in quite some time. Everyday fans/general spectators don't remember who played in or won the Music City Bowl/Kraft Hunger Bowl/etc. They remember who played in the National Championship (now CFP) or BCS bowls (now NY6 Bowls).

Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Purdue, Colorado, and Washington State have all appeared in high-profile bowls more recently than BC.

It also doesn't help that BC is a non-factor when it comes to the #2 and #3 nationwide most followed sports after football (MBB & WBB).

Bowl wins are nice. So is winning the NIT Tournament. Basically you had a good season, but no one's gonna remember it outside your own fanbase.

Boston College may not have the academics like Boston U. Boston U. is a AAU, but if they re-add football, they might get a Big 10 invite. U.Mass. is closer to that goal than Boston College. U. Mass. is a public flagship school that all but Northwestern are. Northwestern could be a victim of the FCOA and may back out of the Big 10.

Couple of thoughts. First, BC "has academics" like BU. BC is 31st in the USNWR rankings compared to 42nd for BU. Note that there are no Catholic universities in the AAU. It's not about the quality of the academics. Most Catholic universities are simply not as research oriented as AAU members. However, Georgetown and Notre Dame are both rated RU/VH by the Carnegie Foundation, which is a good proxy for AAU membership, and are not members.

Regarding the wisdom of the ACC's invitation of BC, I don't think the on the field performance is a good measure. I agree with the comments about BC not delivering the Boston market. BC is very much a niche in the Boston sports market. It does not have the broad appeal of some other private schools, such as USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Syracuse or Stanford. It is really more akin to a Northwestern, Vanderbilt or TCU. There is clearly room, though, for some number of schools like these in P5 conferences.

Orange...I think what you are overlooking here is the sheer size of the Boston market. #7 and one of the wealthiest in the country. Even a "niche" market this size trumps programs with larger market share, but in much smaller and less wealthy markets. Besides, BC's TV ratings aren't bad at all.

The biggest plus, however, is the fact that BC games are covered on NESN. If an ACCN ever happens, the ACC would likely be on basic cable in the 7th largest and one of the wealthiest markets in the country. The same could be said for Rutgers and UMD. Both of those schools play second fiddle to the pro teams in their region. HOWEVER, the BiG is carried on the basic cable packages in both their huge markets. That drives revenue to the conference, as does BC with the Boston market.

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 07:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:07 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 02:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  When BC came in the league, they won their division two of their first four years in the league, and have had only 2 losing conference records in ten seasons. By comparison during that time Miami has zero division titles and 4 losing conference records during that time. Seems tome they did as good or better than could be reasonably expected.

Ad....good points. It always amazes me when I see comments like this regarding BC. Adding BC was a "bad decision"???

I have to at least rhetorically ask some of you guys...what is it that makes some posters here completely ignore the facts as they apply to BC??? Is it a Catholic thing? Again, is it a CATHOLIC thing???

Here are the facts...in the 10 seasons BC has played FB in the ACC, it has finished in the top half of the Conference from a W-L perspective. It has enjoyed 8 winning season out of the 10 it has played. As Ad mentioned, it has played in 2 ACCCGs. Miami has yet to play in one.

BC sits in the friggin 7th LARGEST media market in the country and has solid ratings in that market. I will be happy to post some of them YET AGAIN if people want. BC games are carried on the major New England sports cable network (NESN). You don't think that hasn't helped the ACC secure more revenue from TV and won't be a major factor if and when an ACCN is launched?

Sorry to be so direct. But honestly - if any other school had entered the ACC and had BC's level of-the-field performance and sat in the 7th largest media market, and had the decent ratings in said market that BC has had, I don't think these questions would be asked! So, I scratch my head and ask myself what is unique to BC that makes these type of questions come up continually? Hence my rhetorical question.

I'll probably get a hostile response, but I'll answer the question. This is my opinion.

Yes - football is king in college sports. BC has done well and played in many bowl games, but the problem is that they haven't played in a high-profile bowl game in quite some time. Everyday fans/general spectators don't remember who played in or won the Music City Bowl/Kraft Hunger Bowl/etc. They remember who played in the National Championship (now CFP) or BCS bowls (now NY6 Bowls).

Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Purdue, Colorado, and Washington State have all appeared in high-profile bowls more recently than BC.

It also doesn't help that BC is a non-factor when it comes to the #2 and #3 nationwide most followed sports after football (MBB & WBB).

Bowl wins are nice. So is winning the NIT Tournament. Basically you had a good season, but no one's gonna remember it outside your own fanbase.

Boston College may not have the academics like Boston U. Boston U. is a AAU, but if they re-add football, they might get a Big 10 invite. U.Mass. is closer to that goal than Boston College. U. Mass. is a public flagship school that all but Northwestern are. Northwestern could be a victim of the FCOA and may back out of the Big 10.

Couple of thoughts. First, BC "has academics" like BU. BC is 31st in the USNWR rankings compared to 42nd for BU. Note that there are no Catholic universities in the AAU. It's not about the quality of the academics. Most Catholic universities are simply not as research oriented as AAU members. However, Georgetown and Notre Dame are both rated RU/VH by the Carnegie Foundation, which is a good proxy for AAU membership, and are not members.

Regarding the wisdom of the ACC's invitation of BC, I don't think the on the field performance is a good measure. I agree with the comments about BC not delivering the Boston market. BC is very much a niche in the Boston sports market. It does not have the broad appeal of some other private schools, such as USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Syracuse or Stanford. It is really more akin to a Northwestern, Vanderbilt or TCU. There is clearly room, though, for some number of schools like these in P5 conferences.

You missed the one school that was an AAU before they dropped out. Catholic University was an AAU from the start.

Now, I have been reading that several that are tier 1 level along with the AAU schools, but some might be just short to get in there. From what I read are these schools that are hoping for an invite.

Cal.-Poly, SLO, I think they are a branch of Cal.-Tech, and PAC 12 call them a sister school to academics.
South Florida
Virginia Tech
New Mexico
Washington State
U. Conn.
U. Mass.
Montana
Florida State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado State
LSU
North Carolina State
Cincinnati
Georgia
Miami, Florida
Dartmouth
Central Florida
Houston
Hawaii
Kentucky
Florida International
Wayne State, Mich.
South Carolina
North Texas
UTA
Louisville
UTSA
Oregon State
Nebraska
Texas Tech
Albany, NY
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah
Lamar
West Texas A&M
UTEP
Texas State
Texas-Dallas
Illinois-Chicago
Cal.-Riverside
Maryland-Baltimore County
VCU
IUPUI
UAB


They schools might be short in some areas to get accepted right away. Some state have lousy governors who cut education budgets that hurts the growth of the schools to become research vessel schools and so forth. Plus, why did Arizona State get an invite to the Big 10 for hockey? They know something up with the AAU about which schools would get invited. Could they be waiting until after the invites to send invites out? If some of the schools that I listed get invited to the AAU that are rumored to be invited to the Big 12 as candidates? The Big 12 may need to worry that they could lose out on more schools in the east to help West Virginia.