I hope Louisville adds Men's LAX and Wrestling very soon.

(04-09-2017 11:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

Passing on JHU was a really dumb decision.

I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 11:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

Passing on JHU was a really dumb decision.

I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Notre Dame is close. I know that doesn't contradict your point, and I don't mean for it to. However, there is a precedent for not strictly following an arbitrary implicit/explicit rules that might prevent a JHU add.

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 11:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

Passing on JHU was a really dumb decision.

I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Before the 2013 realignment, the ACC played as a four school league in lacrosse for many years. As a four or five school league, the ACC does not receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. However, this really doesn't matter very much to the ACC, as most and frequently all members earn at large bids in any event.

It's not clear to me that scheduling creates any problems either. Although having five schools creates a bye week in conference scheduling, ACC members are unlikely to have any problem finding quality opponents. I note for instance that America East, the Ivy League, the Metro Atlantic, the NEC and the Patriot League all have odd numbers of schools as well, meaning their members all have bye weeks during the conference season.

(04-10-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Notre Dame is close. I know that doesn't contradict your point, and I don't mean for it to. However, there is a precedent for not strictly following an arbitrary implicit/explicit rules that might prevent a JHU add.

Isn't Notre Dame a full member of the ACC and every other sport competes in the conference with the exception of football?

I get your point, but that's a little different than having an associate member to fill out a "conference" spot for one sport only.

This is really just semantics I guess, but I think it probably is important to leadership with regards to contract language. Especially with the ACC Network looming, how would you handle an associate membership? Who knows, or if it really even matters.

I'm not a lawyer, but these are the kinds of questions and details I wonder about, so I can imagine that those in the league office are surely considering them too.

(04-10-2017 12:20 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Notre Dame is close. I know that doesn't contradict your point, and I don't mean for it to. However, there is a precedent for not strictly following an arbitrary implicit/explicit rules that might prevent a JHU add.

Isn't Notre Dame a full member of the ACC and every other sport competes in the conference with the exception of football?

I get your point, but that's a little different than having an associate member to fill out a "conference" spot for one sport only.

This is really just semantics I guess, but I think it probably is important to leadership with regards to contract language. Especially with the ACC Network looming, how would you handle an associate membership? Who knows, or if it really even matters.

I'm not a lawyer, but these are the kinds of questions and details I wonder about, so I can imagine that those in the league office are surely considering them too.

RE ND: I don't disagree. They aren't an associate member. My point is that they're only a half step away, do the precedent is arguably there.

RE Payout: I see that as an incredibly solvable issue, especially for a school that is elite in the one sport that they want to join. JHU even has the academic credentials to package the add as an academic move. I know you don't disagree w/ me, so I mean the following to be more of a general statement/observation than an argumentative one, but there is no tangible downside to adding them. It's frustrating that we didn't.

While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

(04-10-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 11:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

Passing on JHU was a really dumb decision.

I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Notre Dame is close. I know that doesn't contradict your point, and I don't mean for it to. However, there is a precedent for not strictly following an arbitrary implicit/explicit rules that might prevent a JHU add.

ND does play something like 24 of its 26 sports programs in the ACC, so "associate member" is not applicable (though I understand your point).

Next year, ND will be an associate member of the Big Ten when its hockey program moves there.

F*^k.

(I strongly dislike the Big Ten)

(04-10-2017 12:20 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:12 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  I could be completely wrong on this, but after doing a little research it appears as if the ACC has no sports with associate members.

Perhaps it could be an internal policy, or something the league doesn't want to grapple with? Who knows.

But I agree with both of you, it does seem odd that the ACC wouldn't want a lacrosse presence in Maryland after the Terps bolted for the B1G.

Notre Dame is close. I know that doesn't contradict your point, and I don't mean for it to. However, there is a precedent for not strictly following an arbitrary implicit/explicit rules that might prevent a JHU add.

Isn't Notre Dame a full member of the ACC and every other sport competes in the conference with the exception of football?

I get your point, but that's a little different than having an associate member to fill out a "conference" spot for one sport only.

This is really just semantics I guess, but I think it probably is important to leadership with regards to contract language. Especially with the ACC Network looming, how would you handle an associate membership? Who knows, or if it really even matters.

I'm not a lawyer, but these are the kinds of questions and details I wonder about, so I can imagine that those in the league office are surely considering them too.

Football and hockey.

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

(04-10-2017 02:48 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

Why not try to get Notre Dame back in Hockey East and make a deal to put Hockey East on the ACC Network? It gives the conference network more content and helps it get on the air in areas that wouldn't otherwise be interested. There's no rule that says a conference network can't cut deals to add content from other conferences. It would be like adding several fourth class members without actually making them members.

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:48 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

Why not try to get Notre Dame back in Hockey East and make a deal to put Hockey East on the ACC Network? It gives the conference network more content and helps it get on the air in areas that wouldn't otherwise be interested. There's no rule that says a conference network can't cut deals to add content from other conferences. It would be like adding several fourth class members without actually making them members.

It's not a bad idea in theory, but is the ACC Network going to need a lot more programming during men's and women's basketball season?

That's the major sport that overlaps with the college hockey calendar and I would imagine that ACC basketball would draw lots more eyeballs than ice hockey. Plus, with only two potential ACC members in BC and Notre Dame, how intriguing is it to the rest of the ACC footprint?

I think you're on to something though with the line of thinking that it could be a potential draw for the New England footprint where the ACC doesn't have much other to offer cable subscribers. If anything, you'd likely be looking at something like Hockey East on the ACC Network Plus (which would be the streaming option through WatchESPN, much like the SECN+).

I'm woefully ignorant on the college hockey landscape, but such a deal may not even make sense if programs like New Hampshire or Maine already have local TV deals or carriage with RSNs to show their hockey games.

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:48 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

Why not try to get Notre Dame back in Hockey East and make a deal to put Hockey East on the ACC Network? It gives the conference network more content and helps it get on the air in areas that wouldn't otherwise be interested. There's no rule that says a conference network can't cut deals to add content from other conferences. It would be like adding several fourth class members without actually making them members.

1) women's gymnastics would work. It requires minimal coaching salaries, minimal travel, uniforms, and next to no other costs. Failing that, bringing back women's swimming while being content to be terrible would also work. That move has no facilities costs, minimal travel costs, minimal coaching salaries, and virtually no equipment costs.

2) The Ivy schools aren't in hockey east, and they're neat because they have instant tradition. And, what I described would have SU at the center, while still maintaining exciting rivalries like the Bean Cup.

It's a total pipe dream, and I'm under no delusion of it actually happening, but it would be cool.

(04-10-2017 09:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:48 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

Why not try to get Notre Dame back in Hockey East and make a deal to put Hockey East on the ACC Network? It gives the conference network more content and helps it get on the air in areas that wouldn't otherwise be interested. There's no rule that says a conference network can't cut deals to add content from other conferences. It would be like adding several fourth class members without actually making them members.

1) women's gymnastics would work. It requires minimal coaching salaries, minimal travel, uniforms, and next to no other costs. Failing that, bringing back women's swimming while being content to be terrible would also work. That move has no facilities costs, minimal travel costs, minimal coaching salaries, and virtually no equipment costs.

2) The Ivy schools aren't in hockey east, and they're neat because they have instant tradition. And, what I described would have SU at the center, while still maintaining exciting rivalries like the Bean Cup.

It's a total pipe dream, and I'm under no delusion of it actually happening, but it would be cool.

The thing about women's gymnastics is you can put it on a Tuesday night and women will tune in to watch.

(04-10-2017 09:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:48 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  While I'm at it, my other pipe dream is getting the city or state to partner w/ SU and renovate War Memorial, and for SU to field a D1 hockey program. That's especially true if the ACC could cobble together the 6 Ivy schools that play hockey, BC, ND, SU, Colgate, BU, and RIT(?).

That conference would have real rivalries and fire power. It would also have enough academic clout to give everybody involved the cover to make the move.

I know it won't happen for several reasons (Cornell isn't leaving the conference that they created, BC isn't leaving their conference, ND already tried playing hockey out east, etc.), but a man can dream...

Couple of reactions. First, I doubt Syracuse is particularly interested in adding Men's Hockey if for no other reason it would require adding one or two new Women's sport with 18 +/- scholarships along with coaching staffs and facilities.

I think a conference with Notre Dame and BC as anchors could work as long as every school had neighboring schools to reduce the travel requirements. ND had a huge travel burden in Hockey East. They would need some additional midwestern members to consider another move.

My guess, though, is that Notre Dame is pleased with its move to the Big Ten in hockey and that BC generally likes being in the geographically compact Hockey East with a number of good rivals.

Finally, I don't think the ACC should sponsor any new sports unless 4 current members sponsor the sport. So, I think you'd need Syracuse and one other (Pittsburgh?) to add hockey to justify sponsoring the sport.

Why not try to get Notre Dame back in Hockey East and make a deal to put Hockey East on the ACC Network? It gives the conference network more content and helps it get on the air in areas that wouldn't otherwise be interested. There's no rule that says a conference network can't cut deals to add content from other conferences. It would be like adding several fourth class members without actually making them members.

1) women's gymnastics would work. It requires minimal coaching salaries, minimal travel, uniforms, and next to no other costs. Failing that, bringing back women's swimming while being content to be terrible would also work. That move has no facilities costs, minimal travel costs, minimal coaching salaries, and virtually no equipment costs.

2) The Ivy schools aren't in hockey east, and they're neat because they have instant tradition. And, what I described would have SU at the center, while still maintaining exciting rivalries like the Bean Cup.

It's a total pipe dream, and I'm under no delusion of it actually happening, but it would be cool.

The thing about women's gymnastics is you can put it on a Tuesday night and women will tune in to watch.

All the more reason...

The plot thickens

http://www.scout.com/college/pittsburgh/...mpionships