In 2003, it was a perfect storm of events:

The first round of expansion didn't go as the ACC planned (Syracuse and BC were left at the altar in favor of VT)
The Big East decided to stay together instead of splitting into 2 separate conferences
The ACC didn't get a waiver to host a CCG with only 11 teams.
The ACC flirted with Notre Dame but that didn't go anywhere
BC wasn't happy with the 16 team model of the Big East and went back to the ACC to see if they could be reconsidered as a candidate. The ACC needed a 12th body.

Given all that, BC was a good choice AT THAT TIME, and UConn had just finished transitioning to 1-A. Pitt wasn't looking to leave the Big East (neither was Syracuse). The ACC had already done due diligence on BC. Unfortunately, O'Brien left, Jags was fired and Spaziani drove football into the ground, AND BC fired Skinner. They are as good as their coaches; they aren't a blue blood. The right coach can have them winning again; those men aren't coaching at BC right now.

BC is a poor mans notre dame in football, which given the fact nd hasnt won a big bowl since before the interwebs is not too good

(03-07-2016 10:29 AM)shere khan Wrote:  BC is a poor mans notre dame in football, which given the fact nd hasnt won a big bowl since before the interwebs is not too good

The choices for the ACC for school #12 were:

• BC
• Syracuse
• Pitt
• West Virginia
  

The ACC doesn't want West Virginia, Syracuse/Boeheim was very vocal about not wanting to leave the Big East, and Pitt didn't look as good as BC at the time. The ACC wouldn't have looked to C-USA for replacement schools.

So, take BC and get your CCG (which was the basis for some of their financial projections) or stay at 11...worked well for both ends at the time.

Honestly, ECU may have been a better grab except for the obvious elephant in the room that they would be the fifth team in North Carolina.

(03-07-2016 09:54 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  What does a play from a game in 1984 have to do with BC and the ACC? They were independent in 1984, in no conference at all.

I think he's speaking tongue in cheek.

(03-07-2016 10:24 AM)megadrone Wrote:  The right coach can have them winning again; those men aren't coaching at BC right now.

At least on the offensive side of the ball. No way should BC have gone winless in the AAC with their defense, they held Florida State to 7 (the other 7 was non-offensive).

Everyone in Boston follows BC

J/K it's because they got the jump on UConn. Snooze you lose.

Like I said Boston is a pro sports town. Bc football is in a down time, BTW I'm a uconn fan first.
When Bc was in the beast an had skinner as coach they were better in basketball

The only time BC basketball was relevant was when they got busted for point shaving.

Wow, on the Big East 30-for-30, they are really laying into Boston College and mad about how they left.

(03-08-2016 08:55 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Wow, on the Big East 30-for-30, they are really laying into Boston College and mad about how they left.

Miami leaving the Big East wasn't a big surprise ... they had issues for a while, never brought their baseball in and were a surprise invite when the Big East expanded in 1990. Even though Miami is remote New York, the U was in the Big East because no one else wanted them and the Big East was trying to protect Syracuse, Pitt and BC's football programs.

Boston College was a founding member of the Big East and left while leaving their comments about building the Big East to be the best it could be, went to the ACC to see if there was still interest (the ACC did not come to Boston College when they finally got their invite). Their partners for 25 years felt like they had been stabbed in the back. The hoops only schools really had a grudge, since they now had a huge football problem to deal with when they didn't sponsor football themselves at that level, and accommodated BC, Syracuse and Pitt for the previous 15 years. UConn also had a grudge as they had spent $$$ upgrading an FCS program to watch their supposed conference mates run away as they were just getting to the table at their conference mates' invitation. So yeah, there was bad blood there.

The 30 for 30 did give me a lot more sympathy toward the basketball side of the house.

(03-08-2016 10:50 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:55 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Wow, on the Big East 30-for-30, they are really laying into Boston College and mad about how they left.

Miami leaving the Big East wasn't a big surprise ... they had issues for a while, never brought their baseball in and were a surprise invite when the Big East expanded in 1990. Even though Miami is remote New York, the U was in the Big East because no one else wanted them and the Big East was trying to protect Syracuse, Pitt and BC's football programs.

Boston College was a founding member of the Big East and left while leaving their comments about building the Big East to be the best it could be, went to the ACC to see if there was still interest (the ACC did not come to Boston College when they finally got their invite). Their partners for 25 years felt like they had been stabbed in the back. The hoops only schools really had a grudge, since they now had a huge football problem to deal with when they didn't sponsor football themselves at that level, and accommodated BC, Syracuse and Pitt for the previous 15 years. UConn also had a grudge as they had spent $$$ upgrading an FCS program to watch their supposed conference mates run away as they were just getting to the table at their conference mates' invitation. So yeah, there was bad blood there.

The 30 for 30 did give me a lot more sympathy toward the basketball side of the house.

I never understood why the Big East had to be the 6th football conference. A separate conference (Metro) should have been formed to accommodate the schools that had FB.

(03-08-2016 10:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:50 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:55 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Wow, on the Big East 30-for-30, they are really laying into Boston College and mad about how they left.

Miami leaving the Big East wasn't a big surprise ... they had issues for a while, never brought their baseball in and were a surprise invite when the Big East expanded in 1990. Even though Miami is remote New York, the U was in the Big East because no one else wanted them and the Big East was trying to protect Syracuse, Pitt and BC's football programs.

Boston College was a founding member of the Big East and left while leaving their comments about building the Big East to be the best it could be, went to the ACC to see if there was still interest (the ACC did not come to Boston College when they finally got their invite). Their partners for 25 years felt like they had been stabbed in the back. The hoops only schools really had a grudge, since they now had a huge football problem to deal with when they didn't sponsor football themselves at that level, and accommodated BC, Syracuse and Pitt for the previous 15 years. UConn also had a grudge as they had spent $$$ upgrading an FCS program to watch their supposed conference mates run away as they were just getting to the table at their conference mates' invitation. So yeah, there was bad blood there.

The 30 for 30 did give me a lot more sympathy toward the basketball side of the house.

I never understood why the Big East had to be the 6th football conference. A separate conference (Metro) should have been formed to accommodate the schools that had FB.

It was almost there...except....

Penn State went to the Big 10
South Carolina went to the SEC (but this could have been after the Raycom/Metro deal fell apart)
FSU left the Metro and joined the ACC
Miami joined the Big East
Louisville did not support football in the Metro, Schnellenberger wanted to play a national schedule
Pitt, Syracuse and BC wouldn't have left the Big East for the Metro, though probably would have put their football programs in the Metro.

The Metro would have been left with its own football schools and the Atlantic 10 football schools (Rutgers, Temple, WVU). At the same time, some of the Metro schools split off to form the Great Midwest. As a football only conference, Metro Football's days would have been numbered when the NCAA rules changed in the 90s. Even the Big East had to bring football into the same conference (it was a separate entity until 2000).

That no one else wanted Miami was a myth. As I remember it, the SEC offered them (along with Florida State, Texas A&M and Houston) and was turned down.

(03-09-2016 11:57 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  That no one else wanted Miami was a myth. As I remember it, the SEC offered them (along with Florida State, Texas A&M and Houston) and was turned down.

Yet they ended up in the Big East, which was a stretch at the time.

Made as much sense as the Dolphins being in the AFC East.

I enjoy schadenfreude at BC's expense, but let's be fair. They went to 2 of the first 4 ACC Championship Games. Miami has yet to make an appearance, and the ACC put that game to Florida on the assumption that it was going to be FSU vs. Miami every year. That was literally the whole point of raiding the Big East and torturing the conference landscape into the current contortion it's in today. The only thing they wanted from BC was that they wouldn't be the problem child of the league. They largely haven't been.

The problem at BC appears to be one of changing administrative priorities. Most if not all of us have been through bad administrations. It's a powerless feeling. The additional danger at BC, however, is they might get caught in the Fordham rut. It's usually easier to change the leadership at a public university than a private university, and when your president is a Catholic priest you've got an additional layer of complexity. What are you going to do if you're a booster, call the Pope to complain about the offense? (Mental images like that make me wish Alabama was a Catholic school, because that would totally happen.) Point is, changing inertia at BC could be a much more delicate and slow process than it would be elsewhere. This spiral might keep going. We'll see. Approving that practice facility is the first sign of life they've shown in awhile.

(03-09-2016 01:51 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  I enjoy schadenfreude at BC's expense, but let's be fair. They went to 2 of the first 4 ACC Championship Games. Miami has yet to make an appearance, and the ACC put that game to Florida on the assumption that it was going to be FSU vs. Miami every year. That was literally the whole point of raiding the Big East and torturing the conference landscape into the current contortion it's in today. The only thing they wanted from BC was that they wouldn't be the problem child of the league. They largely haven't been.

The problem at BC appears to be one of changing administrative priorities. Most if not all of us have been through bad administrations. It's a powerless feeling. The additional danger at BC, however, is they might get caught in the Fordham rut. It's usually easier to change the leadership at a public university than a private university, and when your president is a Catholic priest you've got an additional layer of complexity. What are you going to do if you're a booster, call the Pope to complain about the offense? (Mental images like that make me wish Alabama was a Catholic school, because that would totally happen.) Point is, changing inertia at BC could be a much more delicate and slow process than it would be elsewhere. This spiral might keep going. We'll see. Approving that practice facility is the first sign of life they've shown in awhile.

You bring up valid points here, the anger toward BC is still evident, this world is all about money and BC got out while the getting was good and are laughing all the way to the bank

(03-09-2016 01:51 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  I enjoy schadenfreude at BC's expense, but let's be fair. They went to 2 of the first 4 ACC Championship Games. Miami has yet to make an appearance, and the ACC put that game to Florida on the assumption that it was going to be FSU vs. Miami every year. That was literally the whole point of raiding the Big East and torturing the conference landscape into the current contortion it's in today. The only thing they wanted from BC was that they wouldn't be the problem child of the league. They largely haven't been.

The problem at BC appears to be one of changing administrative priorities. Most if not all of us have been through bad administrations. It's a powerless feeling. The additional danger at BC, however, is they might get caught in the Fordham rut. It's usually easier to change the leadership at a public university than a private university, and when your president is a Catholic priest you've got an additional layer of complexity. What are you going to do if you're a booster, call the Pope to complain about the offense? (Mental images like that make me wish Alabama was a Catholic school, because that would totally happen.) Point is, changing inertia at BC could be a much more delicate and slow process than it would be elsewhere. This spiral might keep going. We'll see. Approving that practice facility is the first sign of life they've shown in awhile.

Alabama would switch to Lutheran...