ACC started this whole thing in 2004 anyway...

Invite Georgetown, St. John's, UConn, bringing membership up to 15/18. Financial enticements need to be right so it's beneficial for Gt and STJ's.

ACC has become an ACC/Big East amalgam. Bringing these teams back into the fold reinstates most of the old Big East rivalries and adds NYC and DC markets to ACC.
Notre Dame continues to play each ACC FB team 1x every 3yrs, unless they decide to join as full members.

ACC is already a conglomerate with 15 members, so jumping to 18 is not that big a deal, especially with the right schools.

Arguments against:

1. The old Big East fell apart bc of conflicting agendas of FBS v non-FBS schools...
Those squabbles were rooted in expansion v non-expansion discussions. That doesn't apply here bc this would pretty much conclude ACC expansion. Georgetown and St J's would have big voices too bc of their TV markets.

2. Football drives expansion and ACC needs to improve its football product...
TV drives expansion. NYC and DC have lots of TVs, not primarily focused on just college football.

3. 18 teams is dumb bc only 1 basketball series will be home-and-home...
Since when is expansion focused on what fans want? It's about TV markets. TV stations will dictate scheduling based on projected ratings anyway. So UNC-Dook will always play 2x, and whoever else garners big ratings. If 2 teams really wna play each other twice, like UNC-NCSU, they'll figure it out.

I would actually say instead of UConn, Villanova....

No thanks.

Only took one post and 60 seconds of real time to shoot UConn down in this unrealistic fantasy. CSNBBS gonna CSNBBS.

"ACC started this whole thing in 2004 anyway"

Actually The Big Ten started it in 1990 when Penn State gave up independence to join. Florida State didn't jump to The ACC (over The SEC) until 1991.

So if anyone started the conference expansion process it was The Big Ten.
CJ

(10-05-2015 09:59 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  "ACC started this whole thing in 2004 anyway"

Actually The Big Ten started it in 1990 when Penn State gave up independence to join. Florida State didn't jump to The ACC (over The SEC) until 1991.

So if anyone started the conference expansion process it was The Big Ten.
CJ

This game can go on back to beginning of time.

No, it really started when the ACC added GT.

The Old Big East proved that a mass football/non-football group pairing is not long-lasting, self-sustaining nor in the best interests of the schools as a whole. While the original goal of the Big East in the 1980's was big-time college basketball, the pursuit of being a power conference in football ultimately doomed the conference. The ACC is better off with football schools (and still being the top overall basketball conference) and the Big East is better off being a basketball-only league with a clear basketball-driven focus. Both conferences have like-minded schools that all get along with one another. No need to cause unrest with either just for the sake of addition(s).

With that being said, I sincerely doubt schools like Georgetown, Villanova, and St. Johns would want to turn back the clock and return to being in a league where football is the driving force in decision-making, and, thus, not having a large say over league matters in general. It's what caused so much unrest and uncertainty in the league for numerous years.

I think it makes more sense for the ACC to jump to 18 with invites to uconn, cincy and WVU than break off into 3 pods of 6.

North: BC, UConn, Cuse, ND, Pitt, WVU
Central: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake
South: Cincy, Lville, Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

football format 5-2-2, hoop format 10-3-3

bring in navy, army or byu to play some of ND's games.

(10-05-2015 10:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it makes more sense to invite gtown, nova, st johns, uconn, and cincy to get to 20 and 16 football. Break off into two 10 team divisions that act as a stand alone league with 4 pods of 4 for football.


ACC at 20

Atlantic: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake, Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

Coastal: BC, UConn, Cuse, Pitt, Cincy, Lville, ND, Gtown, Nova, St Johns

That's not a 20-team ACC. That's just kicking BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Notre Dame out of the ACC and putting them in a different conference.

The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

The Pac-16 idea is another example of this -- an east/west division alignment is kind of like re-forming the Pac-8 and kicking the mountain time zone schools into a different league. It's never going to fly with Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools unless UT is one of the schools joining.

(10-05-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

Uh no. If you were talking about football, you might be onto something. Playing UCONN, Georgetown, and Nova is better than playing 75% of the old ACC schools. You're delusional if you think Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt would rather play Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, BC, Wake, and NC State.

Those schools left the Big East for the ACC because of money and football, not because they were salivating at playing the likes of Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, BC, etc in basketball.

(10-05-2015 11:18 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

Uh no. If you were talking about football, you might be onto something. Playing UCONN, Georgetown, and Nova is better than playing 75% of the old ACC schools. You're delusional if you think Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt would rather play Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, BC, Wake, and NC State.

Agreed.

UConn v. Syracuse
Syracuse v. Georgetown
BC v. UConn
Cincinnati v. Louisville
Pitt v. Cincinnati

Those games make waayy more sense than:

Syracuse v. Virginia Tech
BC v. Florida State
Louisville v. Wake Forest
Notre Dame vs. Florida State

The only two teams the former BE schools would miss from the Atlantic in basketball would be UNC and Duke and I am sure the scheduling would work out so those teams would meet throughout the season.

On top of all of this, the schools impacted by this move can once again play schools where fans can easily travel to. Its a win-win for the former BE schools and the ones proposed by Blue Sox (the same came be said for the football side of the equation).

(10-05-2015 11:18 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

Uh no. If you were talking about football, you might be onto something. Playing UCONN, Georgetown, and Nova is better than playing 75% of the old ACC schools. You're delusional if you think Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt would rather play Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, BC, Wake, and NC State.

Those schools left the Big East for the ACC because of money and football, not because they were salivating at playing the likes of Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, BC, etc in basketball.

(1) We're talking about an all-sports conference, not about some alternate universe in which there is a conference for basketball only.

(2) Notre Dame would have stayed in the Big East instead of joining the ACC if Big East basketball was so important to them. The current BE schools would jumped at any chance to get Notre Dame to join them.

(3) I have never seen fans or boosters of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and Notre Dame saying, "I wish we would leave the ACC and reform the old Big East." What I see on the internet indicates exactly the opposite. But, if you know of large numbers of those folks who are saying that they want to go back to a Big East, please reply with links to all of those comments.

(10-05-2015 11:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 11:18 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

Uh no. If you were talking about football, you might be onto something. Playing UCONN, Georgetown, and Nova is better than playing 75% of the old ACC schools. You're delusional if you think Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt would rather play Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, BC, Wake, and NC State.

Those schools left the Big East for the ACC because of money and football, not because they were salivating at playing the likes of Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, BC, etc in basketball.

(1) We're talking about an all-sports conference, not about some alternate universe in which there is a conference for basketball only.

(2) Notre Dame would have stayed in the Big East instead of joining the ACC if Big East basketball was so important to them. The current BE schools would jumped at any chance to get Notre Dame to join them.

(3) I have never seen fans or boosters of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and Notre Dame saying, "I wish we would leave the ACC and reform the old Big East." What I see on the internet indicates exactly the opposite. But, if you know of large numbers of those folks who are saying that they want to go back to a Big East, please reply with links to all of those comments.

(1) We're talking about basketball divisions. The previous poster broke it up into basketball divisions, hence that's what was being discussed.

(2) The new ACC schools like playing Duke, UNC, and Virginia, but top to bottom, they enjoyed playing the old Big East basketball schedule (top to bottom) far more than the ACC (top to bottom). Again you are delusional if you think otherwise.

(3) Not sure why you included BC...but anyways...

If it wasn't for football and the money, those new ACC schools would much rather be playing the old Big East schedule (both for competition and regional rivals). Of course boosters aren't going to say we should have stayed in the old Big East. Saving the Big East basketball conference wasn't an option, given the landscape of today's athletics.

I think this is the best setup for the pac 12 to explore. I guess you could replace houston with tcu to get rid of the GOR of the big 12 but houston fits better and hits a key market…maybe replace iowa state with new mexico to get a more western feel. The only school's in pac 12 that could complain would be 2 out of 20, utah and colorado but that's a small minority. In the end, you would have 1 conference organization and 1 network with a clear path for football champion to the playoffs + with this setup the pac 20 title game would be huge.

Pac 20

West: USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, Oreg, OSU, Wash, WSU, Ariz, ASU
East: Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, Col, Utah

football format 9-0, Hoop format 18-0 i.e. no cross over for anything other than football title game of divisional champs. Each divisions has their own tournaments for other sports. The same thing could apply to an ACC at 20. Ideally, you would have a pac 20 and acc at 18-20 with the sec and big 10 sticking to 14 and the p4 of 66-68 teams with each league getting playoff spot. The whole reason all these moves happened was football related. IF a setup occurs where school's have a path for football, going back to what were great leagues, i.e. pac 10 and modified big east isn't a bad move.

(10-05-2015 11:40 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  (3) Not sure why you included BC...but anyways...

Because the proposal was to put BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Notre Dame into a division apart from the rest of the current ACC.

(10-05-2015 10:27 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:59 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  "ACC started this whole thing in 2004 anyway"

Actually The Big Ten started it in 1990 when Penn State gave up independence to join. Florida State didn't jump to The ACC (over The SEC) until 1991.

So if anyone started the conference expansion process it was The Big Ten.
CJ

This game can go on back to beginning of time.

No, it really started when the ACC added GT.

While this question is only incidental to the thread, IMO the biggest catalyst for realignment was the breakup of the SWC and formation of the Big XII. Before that, you primarily had independents being added to conferences (Penn State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, South Carolina) rather than conferences being raided.

(10-05-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The acc 20 setup isn't a bad thing though since it creates 2 outstanding hoop conferences under 1 banner that still allow football school's to form a 4 pods of 4 setup. Its basically the best of the big east with the old acc minus maryland + a path for football school's. The only rule change needed is to allow divisions to have hoop tournaments. Same concept applies to a pac 20 setup of 7-8 big 12 school's.

It's a bad thing for schools that are in the ACC now and want to stay there. Ask Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc. if they want to keep playing ACC basketball, or if they want to be sent to a pseudo-revival of the Big East.

Any conference of 20 teams (for that matter 16 or more) would have a similar problem, especially if it involves having one division of long-time core conference members and another that is mostly made up of recent additions.

The Pac-16 idea is another example of this -- an east/west division alignment is kind of like re-forming the Pac-8 and kicking the mountain time zone schools into a different league. It's never going to fly with Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools unless UT is one of the schools joining.

Frankly, I don't think those schools would like it even if Texas and Oklahoma went to the PAC. I think they are more likely to have an alumni base in California rather than in Texas.

(10-05-2015 11:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:27 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:59 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  "ACC started this whole thing in 2004 anyway"

Actually The Big Ten started it in 1990 when Penn State gave up independence to join. Florida State didn't jump to The ACC (over The SEC) until 1991.

So if anyone started the conference expansion process it was The Big Ten.
CJ

This game can go on back to beginning of time.

No, it really started when the ACC added GT.

While this question is only incidental to the thread, IMO the biggest catalyst for realignment was the breakup of the SWC and formation of the Big XII. Before that, you primarily had independents being added to conferences (Penn State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, South Carolina) rather than conferences being raided.

The current round was driven by TV deals and by the 12-team football title game rule.

The first domino was Notre Dame leaving the CFA TV contract and getting their own deal with NBC.

The CFA falling apart led to conference-centered TV deals for everyone else, which drove big indies like Penn State and Florida State to seek TV money, TV exposure, and security, and drove the Big 8's addition of the Texas schools (because the Big 8 was not being offered TV money in the same ballpark as the others).

The SEC's move to poach Arkansas and add South Carolina for a 12-team league took longer but was eventually followed by every current P5 league (though the Big 12 "unfollowed" after losing a few schools).