(04-03-2023 12:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 10:41 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Yes, but 36 is pretty darn good. Now seems to have settled in the 35-37 range for some time now. BC continues to make huge investments in facilities and programs.

Agreed, but Villanova has made huge progress in a short period of time.

But aside from the TV money, the ACC has done very little for BC as an institution.

I am certainly not disputing that. As I said before, VU is a great institution! What I do think is that your assessment misses a fundamental reality of these kind of rankings.

If you look more closely at the dynamics of these rankings over a period of years, you see a consistent trend. Schools can rise quickly, then appear to "plateau" in the rankings. This does NOT mean they are plateauing as institutions by any means! It only reflects the reality that as they rise in the rankings, they butt up against increasingly elite schools that are LIKEWISE investing in themselves. We see this all the time. In the Boston area, two schools of note - Boston University and Northeastern University - are both outstanding and have enjoyed a rapid rise in the USN&WR rankings. Those increases have more recently "plateaued" in the low 40's for BU and the mid 40's for NU. This does not at all reflect negatively on either of them in any way as both are great schools. It's just they are now in a space in the rankings where upward movement is increasingly harder.

In the case of NU, they debuted at #49 a couple of years ago, and slipped to #51 this year. As I said, a GREAT school, but there is no evidence that they are positioned to careen past BC in the rankings.

As far as your second point, I am sorry but it is simply not correct.....

First, when you say "aside from the TV money" you are trivializing the most critical factor of all of this. MONEY! it's the beginning, middle, and end of every discussion. Without it, NONE of this is possible. If you doubt this, just take a look at the threads on this Board and the obsession wit maximizing revenues.

When BC jumped from the BEFC, everyone knew the BEFC was basically a dead man walking - which is why every school that could headed for the exit. Had BC not made the jump, their athletic programs would have all declined - which would have had a drastic and irreparable impact on the school itself. If you doubt that, just look at Holy Cross. Once upon time, BC was their "little brother" in terms of size, school reputation, facilities, academics, etc. Then HC de-emphasized athletics and the rest is history.

Take a look at my post above. How many other schools have had the kind of massive investment in world class athletic facilities that BC has managed to do in just the last 5 years, not to mention since joining the ACC? None of that would have been possible without the ACC.

Again, from my post above, I use the baseball program as the perfect example of this. In the old BE days, they were a joke. They actually played on a grass parking lot that was used for FB during the season (hastily converted to baseball in the spring). Now, they enjoy facilities that are among the best in college baseball in the whole country. So much so that the Boston Red Sox no less have utilized their facilities. The results are obvious! After leveraging the new facilities to build the team over the past couple of years, they are on tear. They currently are 20-6, ranked #12/14 in the country and 8-4 in the ACC (tied for second best). All of this while playing the 5th most difficult schedule in the country (#5 in the RPI) and playing ALL of the early season on the road.

NONE of this would have been possible without the ACC. It was a great move for BC.

IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference (unless the conference is a 'destination' i.e. the SEC or B1G). But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

The difference between BC and Lousiville though is Louisville has potential in football, BC does not. The problem with the ACC is not hoops, it's football. UConn is more similar to BC and Syracuse than Louisville and Pitt.

The ACC made a great move by adding Louisville, the past few years of disappointment, notwithstanding. The ACC's biggest mistake was not adding Cincy and WVU along with them when they had the chance. No addition the ACC could have realistically made will prevent FSU and Clemson from leaving sometime in 2030, but if Cincy and WVU were in the ACC instead of the Big 12 it would have stabilized the conference a lot more.

Pitt, WVU, Louisville, and Cincy make a nice quartet of strong regional rivalries all around which helps with recruiting and ratings. Throw VTech in there as well.

Now the ACC is at risk of being potentially raided by the Big 12 after the SEC and/or the B1G raid the top ACC schools sometime in the next decade.

(04-03-2023 08:23 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 05:02 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  BC is dying athletically from being cut off from the other northeast Catholic schools. BC needs to play Notre Dame every year plus Big East basketball. That is how they maximize value. Playing southern schools just doesn’t cut it in Boston.

So much wrong with this:

For a school this is supposedly "dying athletically", it has made huge investments in its facilities since going the ACC. Just in the last 5 years...

Fish Field House - Completed 2018 - IPF for Football - adjacent to Alumni Stadium/Conte Forum Complex. Also adjacent to the Yawkey Center (Completed in 2005. BC Football building that is connected to Alumni Stadium.)

https://www.arcusa.com/spaces/fish-field...on-college


Harrington Athletics Village Completed in 2019 - Baseball/Softball -

https://youtu.be/b75mM8zlf6I


Hoag Basketball Pavilion - Mens and Women' BasketBall - Connected to Conte Forum. Completion Date: Summer, 2023

https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/athleti...egins.html


Margot Connell Recreation Center Center - Completed in 2019. Houses many BC Olympic sports (swimming, tennis, volleyball) Completed 2019.

https://youtu.be/H0_O_k0DmLI

BC's teams are doing ok.......

1. True, the football team had a bad season due to graduation and a huge number of injuries. They will be much better this season as they are much deeper and more experienced.

2. BC's MBB team just finished its best season in 10 years - having beaten several ranked teams and finishing 9-11 in ACC play (ahead of VT, FSU, GT, ND, and L'vlle)

3. BC's baseball team is currently one of the best in the country. Currently ranked 12/14, with a 20-6 record and 8-4 in the ACC (tied for second best). All of this despite playing all of the early season on the road and having a #5 RPI.

4. The Women's lacrosse team has been to 4 straight national championship games...winning the national championship in 2021.

The BC volleyball Team won the 2002 National Invitational Volleyball Championship

BC sits in the #9 DMA (second only to Atlanta in the ACC footprint), and one of the wealthiest. Contrary to what has been posted here, BC continues to get solid TV ratings in the Boston DMA - especially for big games.

Please spare us the obituaries. We are doing just fine.

Boston College's best team in ten years and they're still not even an NCAA team. That tells you everything you need to know about them. And they have the right to tell the ACC not to take a team that won four national championships? They should be happy THEY'RE in the ACC.

(04-03-2023 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference. But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

I always wonder just what kind of data posters have to make this claim - and then I realize the tell - more often than not it comes from posters from schools where many fans have a grudge against BC - going back to the BE days.

Setting aside that BC sits in a top 10 DMA (the second biggest in the ACC footprint), BC's teams have actually done Ok over a period of time. It's women's lacrosse team is elite - having won the NC 2 years ago and going to four straight NC games. It's volleyball team just won the NIT tournament for volleyball. Its baseball team is currently amount the best in the Country.

Sure, FB has been middling, but hardly the worst in the ACC and most years better than SU - and this year, if they stay healthy - will be much different. Under new leadership, its MBB is showing strong signs of resurgence.

Yet, BC is the poster child for the "not a good fit for the ACC" crowd.

Let me see if I have this correct/ BC is a:
- Elite private university
- Top 10 DMA
- Among other schools from the northeast that currently sit in the ACC.
- Major Athletic Programs mostly have been middle of the road in recent years. Hardly basement dwellers year-after-year (perhaps MBB in recent years but that is showing signs of a turnaround). Certainly there are other schools in the ACC is the same boat or worse - that sit in much smaller DMA.

Yet BC continues to be singled out by some on here. I wonder why.

(04-03-2023 09:56 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference. But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

I always wonder just what kind of data posters have to make this claim - and then I realize the tell - more often than not it comes from posters from schools where many fans have a grudge against BC - going back to the BE days.

Setting aside that BC sits in a top 10 DMA (the second biggest in the ACC footprint), BC's teams have actually done Ok over a period of time. It's women's lacrosse team is elite - having won the NC 2 years ago and going to four straight NC games. It's volleyball team just won the NIT tournament for volleyball. Its baseball team is currently amount the best in the Country.

Sure, FB has been middling, but hardly the worst in the ACC and most years better than SU - and this year, if they stay healthy - will be much different. Under new leadership, its MBB is showing strong signs of resurgence.

Yet, BC is the poster child for the "not a good fit for the ACC" crowd.

Let me see if I have this correct/ BC is a:
- Elite private university
- Top 10 DMA
- Among other schools from the northeast that currently sit in the ACC.
- Major Athletic Programs mostly have been middle of the road in recent years. Hardly basement dwellers year-after-year (perhaps MBB in recent years but that is showing signs of a turnaround). Certainly there are other schools in the ACC is the same boat or worse - that sit in much smaller DMA.

Yet BC continues to be singled out by some on here. I wonder why.

Eh, FWIW I have zero grudge against BC regarding the BE - BC left the Big East before USF joined so there's never been any connection there to me.

I typically don't mention BC at all, I did so here because someone started a thread about BC and the ACC. Which prompted my thoughts.

IMO, my mentality is the problem. I typically do not think of BC at all. They just are not on the major-college athletic radar screen to me. Even other low-performing ACC schools seem to register for some reason, but BC just does not, they are like the Invisible Institution, to me. Isolated up there in Beantown, closer to Iceland than to Los Angeles.

BC is an excellent institution in a great, major city. But as far as I can tell, they are contributing next to nothing to the ACC. Now, I'm not an ACC administrator, so maybe they think differently. But IMO the ACC would lose nothing at all if BC were to simply disappear in to the void.

(04-03-2023 09:56 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference. But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

I always wonder just what kind of data posters have to make this claim - and then I realize the tell - more often than not it comes from posters from schools where many fans have a grudge against BC - going back to the BE days.

Setting aside that BC sits in a top 10 DMA (the second biggest in the ACC footprint), BC's teams have actually done Ok over a period of time. It's women's lacrosse team is elite - having won the NC 2 years ago and going to four straight NC games. It's volleyball team just won the NIT tournament for volleyball. Its baseball team is currently amount the best in the Country.

Sure, FB has been middling, but hardly the worst in the ACC and most years better than SU - and this year, if they stay healthy - will be much different. Under new leadership, its MBB is showing strong signs of resurgence.

Yet, BC is the poster child for the "not a good fit for the ACC" crowd.

Let me see if I have this correct/ BC is a:
- Elite private university
- Top 10 DMA
- Among other schools from the northeast that currently sit in the ACC.
- Major Athletic Programs mostly have been middle of the road in recent years. Hardly basement dwellers year-after-year (perhaps MBB in recent years but that is showing signs of a turnaround). Certainly there are other schools in the ACC is the same boat or worse - that sit in much smaller DMA.

Yet BC continues to be singled out by some on here. I wonder why.

DMAs don't matter if you don't deliver the market, just ask Temple or SMU. Boston is and always will be a pro-market above all else. BC competes for dollars and viewership against some of the most storied pro franchises of all time. Couple that with a relatively small enrollment and a poor regional recruiting area to draw from, BC is in a tough spot.

Tuscaloosa, Columbus, Ann Arbor, Athens, Baton Rouge, etc. are all "small" markets compared to Boston. That alone shows how important markets are to conference realignment.

(04-03-2023 09:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 08:23 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 05:02 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  BC is dying athletically from being cut off from the other northeast Catholic schools. BC needs to play Notre Dame every year plus Big East basketball. That is how they maximize value. Playing southern schools just doesn’t cut it in Boston.

So much wrong with this:

For a school this is supposedly "dying athletically", it has made huge investments in its facilities since going the ACC. Just in the last 5 years...

Fish Field House - Completed 2018 - IPF for Football - adjacent to Alumni Stadium/Conte Forum Complex. Also adjacent to the Yawkey Center (Completed in 2005. BC Football building that is connected to Alumni Stadium.)

https://www.arcusa.com/spaces/fish-field...on-college


Harrington Athletics Village Completed in 2019 - Baseball/Softball -

https://youtu.be/b75mM8zlf6I


Hoag Basketball Pavilion - Mens and Women' BasketBall - Connected to Conte Forum. Completion Date: Summer, 2023

https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/athleti...egins.html


Margot Connell Recreation Center Center - Completed in 2019. Houses many BC Olympic sports (swimming, tennis, volleyball) Completed 2019.

https://youtu.be/H0_O_k0DmLI

BC's teams are doing ok.......

1. True, the football team had a bad season due to graduation and a huge number of injuries. They will be much better this season as they are much deeper and more experienced.

2. BC's MBB team just finished its best season in 10 years - having beaten several ranked teams and finishing 9-11 in ACC play (ahead of VT, FSU, GT, ND, and L'vlle)

3. BC's baseball team is currently one of the best in the country. Currently ranked 12/14, with a 20-6 record and 8-4 in the ACC (tied for second best). All of this despite playing all of the early season on the road and having a #5 RPI.

4. The Women's lacrosse team has been to 4 straight national championship games...winning the national championship in 2021.

The BC volleyball Team won the 2002 National Invitational Volleyball Championship

BC sits in the #9 DMA (second only to Atlanta in the ACC footprint), and one of the wealthiest. Contrary to what has been posted here, BC continues to get solid TV ratings in the Boston DMA - especially for big games.

Please spare us the obituaries. We are doing just fine.

Boston College's best team in ten years and they're still not even an NCAA team. That tells you everything you need to know about them. And they have the right to tell the ACC not to take a team that won four national championships? They should be happy THEY'RE in the ACC.

Um, what team would that be? BCFB finished #10 in the AP in 2007 and they were very much an ACC team. Lacross, VB, and baseball are all ACC teams.

This "BC kept Uconn out of the ACC" BS is a bit rich, IMO. Did BC have a preference to keep Uconn out of the ACC? I don't know, maybe? But hey, you do realize that the then CT AG took the highly unusual step to PERSONALLY sueing BC admins over BC leaving the BE? I imagine when one is personally sued, that tends to leave a bitter taste, no?

Besides, are you actually going to state that BC had the actual power to "veto" any school from being admitted to the BC? Lowly BC?? I mean which is it - is BC an annoying drag on the ACC? Or are they this all-powerful entity with the ability to ordain who comes to the ACC and who does not? I am confused. Cannot be both.

Just my thoughts, but perhaps the ACC was likewise piqued as the then CT AG also sued the ACC? Perhaps that might have had something do do with this? You tell me.

(04-03-2023 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:56 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference. But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

I always wonder just what kind of data posters have to make this claim - and then I realize the tell - more often than not it comes from posters from schools where many fans have a grudge against BC - going back to the BE days.

Setting aside that BC sits in a top 10 DMA (the second biggest in the ACC footprint), BC's teams have actually done Ok over a period of time. It's women's lacrosse team is elite - having won the NC 2 years ago and going to four straight NC games. It's volleyball team just won the NIT tournament for volleyball. Its baseball team is currently amount the best in the Country.

Sure, FB has been middling, but hardly the worst in the ACC and most years better than SU - and this year, if they stay healthy - will be much different. Under new leadership, its MBB is showing strong signs of resurgence.

Yet, BC is the poster child for the "not a good fit for the ACC" crowd.

Let me see if I have this correct/ BC is a:
- Elite private university
- Top 10 DMA
- Among other schools from the northeast that currently sit in the ACC.
- Major Athletic Programs mostly have been middle of the road in recent years. Hardly basement dwellers year-after-year (perhaps MBB in recent years but that is showing signs of a turnaround). Certainly there are other schools in the ACC is the same boat or worse - that sit in much smaller DMA.

Yet BC continues to be singled out by some on here. I wonder why.

Eh, FWIW I have zero grudge against BC regarding the BE - BC left the Big East before USF joined so there's never been any connection there to me.

I typically don't mention BC at all, I did so here because someone started a thread about BC and the ACC. Which prompted my thoughts.

IMO, my mentality is the problem. I typically do not think of BC at all. They just are not on the major-college athletic radar screen to me. Even other low-performing ACC schools seem to register for some reason, but BC just does not, they are like the Invisible Institution, to me. Isolated up there in Beantown, closer to Iceland than to Los Angeles.

BC is an excellent institution in a great, major city. But as far as I can tell, they are contributing next to nothing to the ACC. Now, I'm not an ACC administrator, so maybe they think differently. But IMO the ACC would lose nothing at all if BC were to simply disappear in to the void.

I certainly respect your opinion. I just disagree, that is all.

Louisville has had a few down years but they’re a good add for the ACC. If not in the ACC they’d be in the Big 12 right now.

BC = Red stapler guy from office space. Playing sports, doing whatever and getting a decent paycheck for being quiet.

(04-03-2023 10:41 AM)mike012779 Wrote:  BC = Red stapler guy from office space. Playing sports, doing whatever and getting a decent paycheck for being quiet.

I know this is a surprise to many, but in order for teams like Clemson, FSU, UNC, Duke to be blue bloods, teams like Boston College are necessary.

It's easy to say "UConn over BC" now, what with BC not having really anything in terms of success lately, and UConn in the championship basketball game yet again...but at the time it was the pretty obvious choice to go with BC based on the pedigree. UConn had just begun their rise (including a championship after a decade of massive performance). They were certainly a more worthy basketball choice.

But as always, it was about football. While BC isn't a world beater...they had FBS history (including one of the most famous moments of all time), and UConn didn't.


In all honesty I wish them both the most dismal of failures, but would also very much like to be in a conference with both of them (outside of just in hockey).

(04-03-2023 10:06 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:56 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO both Louisville (since they have been mentioned in this thread) and BC have been big disappointments to the ACC. BC IMO contributes very little to nothing these days.

Moving to the ACC was great for BC, but not good for the ACC, IMO.

And if there is one thing harder than breaking a GOR it is probably jettisoning a conference mate, especially from a major conference with big money.

That's why I am always conservative about "expanding". It's easy to expand on the conference's terms. Very difficult to contract on its terms. Contraction only seems to occur when a school dumps its conference, not vice-versa.

Expansion seems to be a "heads I win tails you lose thing" with the "I" being the school. If the school exceeds expectations, it may well leave for an even better conference. But if the school doesn't meet expectations, well, the conference is stuck with them.

I always wonder just what kind of data posters have to make this claim - and then I realize the tell - more often than not it comes from posters from schools where many fans have a grudge against BC - going back to the BE days.

Setting aside that BC sits in a top 10 DMA (the second biggest in the ACC footprint), BC's teams have actually done Ok over a period of time. It's women's lacrosse team is elite - having won the NC 2 years ago and going to four straight NC games. It's volleyball team just won the NIT tournament for volleyball. Its baseball team is currently amount the best in the Country.

Sure, FB has been middling, but hardly the worst in the ACC and most years better than SU - and this year, if they stay healthy - will be much different. Under new leadership, its MBB is showing strong signs of resurgence.

Yet, BC is the poster child for the "not a good fit for the ACC" crowd.

Let me see if I have this correct/ BC is a:
- Elite private university
- Top 10 DMA
- Among other schools from the northeast that currently sit in the ACC.
- Major Athletic Programs mostly have been middle of the road in recent years. Hardly basement dwellers year-after-year (perhaps MBB in recent years but that is showing signs of a turnaround). Certainly there are other schools in the ACC is the same boat or worse - that sit in much smaller DMA.

Yet BC continues to be singled out by some on here. I wonder why.

DMAs don't matter if you don't deliver the market, just ask Temple or SMU. Boston is and always will be a pro-market above all else. BC competes for dollars and viewership against some of the most storied pro franchises of all time. Couple that with a relatively small enrollment and a poor regional recruiting area to draw from, BC is in a tough spot.

Tuscaloosa, Columbus, Ann Arbor, Athens, Baton Rouge, etc. are all "small" markets compared to Boston. That alone shows how important markets are to conference realignment.

The thing about being in a DMA the size of the Boston-Manchester market, you don't have to dominate the market. Sure, the pro franchises will always dominate, as they do in any major city, but BC does get eyeballs. Much smaller than the pro teams, to be sure; and much smaller as a % of the market than the college hotbeds you cited. That's said, BC's smaller % is of a much larger market than those other areas, so the actual # of eyeballs is larger than you might think. Add to this the Boston-Manchester market is one of the wealthiest DMAs in the country and that just increases the value.

Look at it this way, the dynamics you cite have ALWYS been the case for BC, since forever. Long before BC joined the ACC. The ACC had access to all the market data when they invited BC. My guess is they appreciated the dynamic I put forth above.

BC does ok in recruiting. One of the leading recruiting services has them at #59 for 2023 (despite coming off a very bad season). This service has them ahead of GT, UV, and SU in the ACC. Of course, recruiting ranking are subjective and who knows how things will play out. But BC will possibly have a top 10 NFL pick this year and has consistently had high NFL draft picks. Recruiting is not the issue.

I'm thinking BC has the better academics.

(04-03-2023 10:53 AM)e-parade Wrote:  It's easy to say "UConn over BC" now, what with BC not having really anything in terms of success lately, and UConn in the championship basketball game yet again...but at the time it was the pretty obvious choice to go with BC based on the pedigree. UConn had just begun their rise (including a championship after a decade of massive performance). They were certainly a more worthy basketball choice.

But as always, it was about football. While BC isn't a world beater...they had FBS history (including one of the most famous moments of all time), and UConn didn't.


In all honesty I wish them both the most dismal of failures, but would also very much like to be in a conference with both of them (outside of just in hockey).

I have to say, e-parade. I like your post. You don't hide you animosity - which is perfectly fine as this kind of animosity makes sports - especially college sports - part of the special thing it is. You also are objective and I really appreciate that.

(04-03-2023 11:01 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-03-2023 10:53 AM)e-parade Wrote:  It's easy to say "UConn over BC" now, what with BC not having really anything in terms of success lately, and UConn in the championship basketball game yet again...but at the time it was the pretty obvious choice to go with BC based on the pedigree. UConn had just begun their rise (including a championship after a decade of massive performance). They were certainly a more worthy basketball choice.

But as always, it was about football. While BC isn't a world beater...they had FBS history (including one of the most famous moments of all time), and UConn didn't.


In all honesty I wish them both the most dismal of failures, but would also very much like to be in a conference with both of them (outside of just in hockey).

I have to say, e-parade. I like your post. You don't hide you animosity - which is perfectly fine as this kind of animosity makes sports - especially college sports - part of the special thing it is. You also are objective and I really appreciate that.

You know times are tough when there's a debate about UConn vs BC shoulda/woulda/coulda. It woulda made no difference to the conference's current predicament. If the ACC could go back in time...it would be all-in on grabbing PSU. Beyond a big state u, strategic move like that...it's splitting hairs. I miss the old days of BE basketball and hope someday it reforms. BC and UConn belong in that conference together.

(04-03-2023 11:01 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I'm thinking BC has the better academics.

Who cares? A lot of you guys still haven't figured its about ratings and being competitive on the field/court. Joe Six Pack isn't sitting at home waiting with baited breath to watch a school because they have a great economics department. Well, maybe some of you all apparently.

ACC expansion has always been driven by 1) football and 2) media payouts. UConn wasn’t even a consideration when BC got the invitation. After Maryland left, UConn was a contender but Louisville was the better overall program.

With regards to the selection of the 12th conference member, there was too much politics in that large expansion (Miami, ESPN & Big East, UVa & VT, BC & Syracuse, Maryland & Duke, etc.). In hindsight, the best solution would probably have been Pitt and a geographic split…
East - Maryland, UVa, UNC, Duke, Pitt & Miami
South - Clemson, VT, NC State, Wake, GT & FSU
Unfortunately, BC got stuck in an awkward island. Not that expanding with BC or Pitt would have made much difference in today’s landscape.

(04-03-2023 09:43 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  The difference between BC and Lousiville though is Louisville has potential in football, BC does not. The problem with the ACC is not hoops, it's football. UConn is more similar to BC and Syracuse than Louisville and Pitt.

Why don’t they have potential?

Quote:The ACC made a great move by adding Louisville, the past few years of disappointment, notwithstanding. The ACC's biggest mistake was not adding Cincy and WVU along with them when they had the chance. No addition the ACC could have realistically made will prevent FSU and Clemson from leaving sometime in 2030, but if Cincy and WVU were in the ACC instead of the Big 12 it would have stabilized the conference a lot more.

Pitt, WVU, Louisville, and Cincy make a nice quartet of strong regional rivalries all around which helps with recruiting and ratings. Throw VTech in there as well.

I’m going to catch the usual anti-Cincinnati flack for this, but no, the ACC should absolutely NOT have added Cincinnati and WVU, nor UConn and S. FLA for that matter. Why? Because they didn’t add any money and that’s what the name of the game is. Same reason why the Big XII didn’t go higher than 10 this past decade.

Quote:Now the ACC is at risk of being potentially raided by the Big 12 after the SEC and/or the B1G raid the top ACC schools sometime in the next decade.

The good news is a few contracts are running out before the ACC’s. What happens if the contract payouts are lower come 2030? Ohio State wants to make as close to the money they are now. So what if they can strike an independent deal with Amazon to stream their football games and make more than being bundled in a Big Ten package?

My prediction is we see the largest brands strike deals like this while remaining in their conference. It’s the natural order of things and the way everything was headed in the 1940’s/50’s had the NCAA not stepped in.