(05-22-2020 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

I don't disagree with anything you said here Quo, but poor Missouri is a fish out of water and gasping for air. They had less than 5 games against all other SEC members except for A&M (all Big 12) and Vanderbilt who apparently played them often way back when, which is even well before me. They have great people who try hard to fit in but truly have nothing in common with most Southerners. And looking at their athletics sag in the SEC is painful, not for us, but for them.

I agree 100% about the Aggies and they seem to love the SEC. But let's be honest Rutgers is inexplicably in the Big 10 and was last I looked the only one of the P5 schools subsidized at or above 25%. West Virginia belongs somewhere, just not in the Big 12 where they do okay but are an absolute outlier and over time that is going to wear mighty thin.

I don't see a bad fit in the PAC, but sadly their issues are internal.

I raise this point not to have anyone kicked out, but to say if there is a breakaway it would be the perfect time to address the hangover of the market footprint additions and possibly align them in ways better suited to those schools.

On a side note we will either wind up with extreme divisions in revenue within the P5 if we stay or we will have an opportunity to address some of that inequity if we breakaway. I think the impetus is there. We'll see.

It's hard to look at your own conference and identify the outliers.
In the B1G:
should have taken Missouri not Nebraska
should have taken Pitt and not Maryland
Rutgers?

best for everybody: cut PSU, Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers and move back to the original 10.
PSU could captain a northeast conference and solve most of the created problems

In the SEC:
I still question Arkansas, I think they actually fit better in the current Big 12
Missouri needs to be somewhere else
Texas A&M seems happy, but.........
If the Magnolia forms, Vandy needs to be in it.

The PAC seems to be OK, I really don't care about any of them.

The Big 12 would be great if they could get teams back from the SEC and the B1G

(05-22-2020 05:33 AM)schmolik Wrote:  It does hurt me not seeing Penn State on your list although I wonder if that's more Penn State not wanting to play Pittsburgh than the other way around (I'm pretty sure that is the case). Call me old but I really wish the two played every year. The year-end "Backyward Brawl" between Pittsburgh and West Virginia didn't become a thing until 1997, they played late in 1995 but played early in 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_Brawl). Up until Penn State left for the Big Ten, they were the main November game for the Panthers, most often the finale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State..._rivalry). Every time I hear about Pittsburgh-West Virginia being the rivalry I feel insulted.

I'm not going to say I don't want Penn State in the Big Ten (of course I'm saying that because my undergraduate degree is from Illinois). But even though I grew up playing Pittsburgh I've also grown accustomed to playing Ohio State and Michigan as well. In my ideal world Penn State would be playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Pittsburgh every year (I also miss playing Notre Dame every year as well as Syracuse).

If you ever wonder why I'm not as into college football as I am into college basketball, the Northeast isn't a great place for college football. ClairtonPanther doesn't feel like he has any rivalries in football. At Penn State, we have two Eastern teams and one is one of the most irrelevant teams in college football and one of the stupidest names for a college. How can you really get up for football? Penn State and Pittsburgh don't have an annual Iron Bowl or "Big Game" to look forward to every year. We did but our schools don't want to play anymore (or at the very least PSU doesn't want to play Pittsburgh, I always hear Pittsburgh is open to playing). At Penn State, we look forward to playing Ohio State but they look forward to playing Michigan. And living in Philly, don't even get me started on Temple football (or after UConn leaves, Temple men's basketball, at least we have Villanova). I've lived here for 20 years and I don't think I've seen one Temple football game. Who in the AAC is worth paying to see live?

I didn't include PSU because I wanted to make this schedule semi realistic. Obviously I'd include PSU, but PSU doesn't want the game. Damn shame.

(05-22-2020 06:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The lack of a strong, Eastern all sports conference really kills Pitt. Imagine if it had been economically viable for Penn St to anchor such a league:

Penn St
Pitt
Syracuse
BC
UConn
Rutgers
Temple
Maryland
WVU
VT
Miami

Unfortunately, circumstances and internal politics within the Big East prevented that from ever being a reality and rather than be a cohesive, united region the football programs in that part of the country got Balkanized.

To add insult to injury, when the ACC entered into its relationship with ND, Pitt lost that ever important annual game.

Pitt’s biggest draws are Penn St, ND, and WVU. Now they rarely play any of them. Annual games with Syracuse and Miami hardly make up for why was lost. Those were 4th or 5th rate rivalries at best.

It’s too bad that back in 2005, when the ACC was gutting the Big East of its football programs they didn’t have the foresight to expand past 12 to create a Northern and Southern division that could have kept some of those programs together

Yea, to for an eastern league to be viable, PSU would have to anchor. Otherwise, Pitt would need several schools like WVU: to leave the Big XII, Syracuse and BC: to leave the ACC with them to go independent. Realistically, neither is likely to happen.

(05-22-2020 06:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Well... Pitt had such a league, but its chancellor decided to turn down the money that was offered the conference in 2011 to go with the cool kids in the ACC. You reap what you sow.

That league wasn't the same. It was just a watered down version of the Big East of the 90's. Plus, I'm not the chancellor, nor do I make such decisions. 2011 would've been the preferred time to go Independent.

(05-22-2020 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 01:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I know that this would result in a loss of TV revenue, but perhaps worth the risk. I think Pitt should go back to independent, and use a league (like ND does) for bowl tie-ins. I miss the traditional schedule Pitt had with BC, Temple, Rutgers, Navy, WVU, Syracuse and so on. There's zero traditional rivals on our schedule. I'd rather play Navy on a yearly basis than Duke, I'd rather play Rutgers on a yearly basis than North Carolina. This is nothing personal against the likes of Virginia and Georgia Tech, but these games just don't get me excited for Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong with this opinion. But conference realignment and the chase of money really destroyed what was left of northeastern football. Big East was a valiant effort to create a northeastern league, but wasn't meant to be. But being in a southern based league with no rivals isn't the fit I was expecting it to be. Virginia Tech is the closest thing we have to a yearly rival, and it doesn't come close to the hatred we had with WVU and likely never will. We may hate a Miami, but we're not close to being Miami's top rival either. Florida, FSU and ND are much more rivals for Miami than Pitt is. Call this buyer's remorse, I don't know. But if I'm Pitt admin, I'm closely looking to what UConn and BYU are doing.

Gimme this sample schedule:

Army
Virginia Tech
Temple
Maryland
Boston College
Rutgers
Navy
BYU
Notre Dame
Syracuse
UConn
WVU

And I'm sure many Pitt fans will disagree, and that's ok. My opinion doesn't represent that of all Pitt fans nor those that run Pitt athletics.

This ND fan says hell yeah, I would love to see Pitt as a football independent.

Notre Dame and Pitt used to play each other almost every year before this ACC stuff came about.

Wished ND and Pitt played each other about every year.

If only the ACC could go to 3 divisions:

Atlantic: UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, GT
Coastal: NC St, WF, L’ville, Clemson, Fla St
Collegiate: BC, Cuse, Pitt, ND, Miami

(05-22-2020 06:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Well... Pitt had such a league, but its chancellor decided to turn down the money that was offered the conference in 2011 to go with the cool kids in the ACC. You reap what you sow.

Yeah, honestly, all the Big East programs except Virginia Tech (who actually fits in the ACC), signed their program death warrants in exchange for a bigger TV payment. And even VT has struggled for a lot of their ACC existence. The rest are utterly irrelevant, including Miami.

I think people underrate identity, geography, cultural ties, competitive level, and other intangibles in conference decisions. A lot of bad decisions have been made by good programs looking only at TV dollars.

And it's been a struggle for the pre-existing ACC programs too. No one at FSU gives a flying flip about playing Syracuse and BC every year and losing annual games with Georgia Tech and UVA. Half of the ACC schedule for FSU is "who gives a flip?!?" The ACC would be better off if all the Big East schools except VT rode out back to a new Big East, though I doubt Miami would leave for any reason. They've benefitted, it seems, intangibly, from association with the AAC academic institutions.

You could reconstruct it and have a legit P6 with a few AAC teams even with as garbage as those ex-Big East programs have been of late...

UConn
BC
Syracuse
Pitt
WVU
Cincinnati
Louisville
Miami
UCF

9-team conference with a round-robin and a CCG. Add in Houston, SMU, and Memphis if you want 12.

(05-22-2020 08:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well, Pitt decided to join the Big East where only two schools played 1-A football – Villanova had just dropped their program – and coincidently, those two are who they're still in a conference with. Although, they only play Syracuse every season. Of the teams you mentioned, Virginia Tech is on the schedule every year too.

I think West Virginia, Temple, and UConn would play a yearly game right now, and Notre Dame pops up on the schedule every now and then – not getting them yearly. A yearly game with Navy isn't happening no matter what, they're in a conference without much wiggle room schedule-wise. On a side note, Penn State (main rival) ditched Pitt, and being an Independent wouldn't help Pitt in that regard.

Let's take a closer look here, I think you'll see that Independence won't help Pitt schedule most of these teams:

Army - - Probably could have a series now, but not yearly
Virginia Tech - - Already play yearly, going Indy could eliminate that
Temple - - Definitely could schedule a yearly series
Maryland - - Doubt they would schedule a yearly series no matter what. Nothing preventing a limited series now
Boston College - - This one sucks because of divisions
Rutgers - - See Maryland
Navy - - Schedule is restricted due to AAC conference slate and yearly Academy opponents
BYU - - Definitely could schedule a series
Notre Dame - - Staying in the ACC is the best way to guarantee a series with them
Syracuse - - Already play yearly, going Indy could eliminate that
UConn - - Definitely could schedule a yearly series
WVU - - Upcoming series if IIRC, should be played yearly during Rivalry Week

(05-22-2020 08:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This ND fan says hell yeah, I would love to see Pitt as a football independent.

Notre Dame and Pitt used to play each other almost every year before this ACC stuff came about.

Pitt being an Independent would not make Notre Dame schedule them on an annual basis.

Had Notre Dame stayed in the Big East, then they could still schedule Pitt, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and whomever else they wanted every season.

On a side note, the ACC really needs to push the ND-Louisville basketball series. Why the hell is ND playing GaTech (?!?!) twice in basketball every season and not Louisville?

(05-22-2020 12:17 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 11:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND likes being a partial member of the ACC.
It likes playing and getting exposure along the East Coast from Boston to Miami.

It is a much better institutional fit than the Big Ten would be by a long shot.

Totally agree, and they get much better exposure in the ACC than they would the Big East, which is a Northeast/Midwest conference.

What's your theory on ND's annual basketball partners, BC and GaTech. I mean, I understand BC to an extent, but GaTech??

No idea at all.

ND and Georgia Tech have a football history. Basketball? None.

(05-22-2020 05:33 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I've lived here for 20 years and I don't think I've seen one Temple football game. Who in the AAC is worth paying to see live?

You're missing out. It's not Penn State with 100K+, but it's better than you think and certainly affordable.

(05-22-2020 01:03 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 11:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Sorry to pile-on with my dislike of Pitt football scheduling practices, but...

The ACC allows schools 4 out-of-conference games. That is more flexibility than is given at other P5 conferences such as the BIG, B12 and PAC. No doubt that the league could generate more media revenue by restricting OOC schedules.

Just seems really bad that Pitt scheduled with UCF. Temple and UConn should be begging to play Pitt. Miami (and occasional FSU) already provide exposure to Florida.

Scheduling with Rutgers or Maryland can’t be more difficult than Iowa. Scheduling Rice can’t be easier than Army or Navy.

Even UNC and WFU swallowed some pride and scheduled an OOC game with each other...because they wanted a more geographic rivalry. Pitt could do a similar arrangement with BC.

Temple would gladly play Pitt but have no need to beg. They have had or have home and homes with the following P5 teams: Maryland, GT, Miami, Rutgers (4 games), BC, Duke and even Penn State. They also have Oklahoma playing in Philly (as part of the only 2 for 1 they have agreed to since the ND series was announced in 2011).

Temple and Pitt have come close to scheduling a football series (b-ball as well) in recent years. However, the chances of this happening decreased once Temple got a home and home with Penn State in 2026/2027 (as Pitt wanted PSU to play them more often).

Exactly. Pitt won't play us.

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

The identity of the ACC is, and has been, transformed the most. Fifty years ago Maryland, Virginia and Carolina were the face of the country club. Now it is Florida State and Clemson that are the leaders of a business. As an ACC fan, I believe that the transformation was essential to survival and actually indicates cohesion.

It is true that the identities of the B12 (UT and OU) and PAC (USC) have not changed as much, but that may not be a good thing. The PAC schools may “like to be in each other’s company” because there is no alternative. The B12 has rabid fans, but it only has one geographic market.

(05-22-2020 11:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND likes being a partial member of the ACC.

I agree, I was referring just to the full-time ACC members in my analysis.

(05-22-2020 01:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I know that this would result in a loss of TV revenue, but perhaps worth the risk. I think Pitt should go back to independent, and use a league (like ND does) for bowl tie-ins. I miss the traditional schedule Pitt had with BC, Temple, Rutgers, Navy, WVU, Syracuse and so on. There's zero traditional rivals on our schedule. I'd rather play Navy on a yearly basis than Duke, I'd rather play Rutgers on a yearly basis than North Carolina. This is nothing personal against the likes of Virginia and Georgia Tech, but these games just don't get me excited for Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong with this opinion. But conference realignment and the chase of money really destroyed what was left of northeastern football. Big East was a valiant effort to create a northeastern league, but wasn't meant to be. But being in a southern based league with no rivals isn't the fit I was expecting it to be. Virginia Tech is the closest thing we have to a yearly rival, and it doesn't come close to the hatred we had with WVU and likely never will. We may hate a Miami, but we're not close to being Miami's top rival either. Florida, FSU and ND are much more rivals for Miami than Pitt is. Call this buyer's remorse, I don't know. But if I'm Pitt admin, I'm closely looking to what UConn and BYU are doing.

Gimme this sample schedule:

Army
Virginia Tech
Temple
Maryland
Boston College
Rutgers
Navy
BYU
Notre Dame
Syracuse
UConn
WVU

And I'm sure many Pitt fans will disagree, and that's ok. My opinion doesn't represent that of all Pitt fans nor those that run Pitt athletics.

convince the ACC to let Pitt switch places with Louisville. Then Pitt is in the division with SU and BC.

(05-22-2020 02:15 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Of all the P5 conferences, I find the ACC as the one that truly lacks an identity. As much as the Pac-12 and Big XII have issues ranging from their conference network distribution to revenues to having one school call the shots, at least they have something in common. The Pac-12 has like minded institutions that like to be in each other’s company. The Big XII has mostly big state schools that are football first and have rabid fan bases. I just don’t see any of that in the ACC. As an outsider, all I see is a fragmented conference that has two different agendas: those from Tobacco Road and the football first group of Clemson-Florida State-Virginia Tech. The ACC from 2005-present was expanded for TV purposes only.

I get what the Pitt fan says. It’s really sad money destroyed rivalries like the Backyard Brawl.

The identity of the ACC is, and has been, transformed the most. Fifty years ago Maryland, Virginia and Carolina were the face of the country club. Now it is Florida State and Clemson that are the leaders of a business. As an ACC fan, I believe that the transformation was essential to survival and actually indicates cohesion.

It is true that the identities of the B12 (UT and OU) and PAC (USC) have not changed as much, but that may not be a good thing. The PAC schools may “like to be in each other’s company” because there is no alternative. The B12 has rabid fans, but it only has one geographic market.

Perhaps the AAC identity is that the league is unlike the other four P5s. And that's not a bad thing.

Given I prefer college hoops to college football (though only modestly more so), I strongly enjoy the AAC basketball group. It is (IMO) the best hoops league in the country — at least based on number of all-time great programs. And I'm fine with Notre Dame's arrangement.

I do feel kind of bad for Pitt (and even Syracuse and Boston College). As I've noted, my nephew-in-law is currently a student at Pitt and I am aware of some of the concerns some posters have made in this thread. In an insane hypothetical, Maryland, UConn, Rutgers, Temple and West Virginia would be in a 20-team, two-division ACC. That would offer the league a chance for a north and south divisional setup that could foster rivalries.

Pitt, Penn st and West Virginia should play each other in every sport/every year. The idea that all three are in different leagues is beyond insane

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

WVU would have been a better fit. And might have been the team added today. But 9 years ago, markets for conference networks were the prime requirement.

(05-22-2020 02:48 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Pitt, Penn st and West Virginia should play each other in every sport/every year. The idea that all three are in different leagues is beyond insane

Good point. And I would argue Pitt and Cincinnati should play every year in multiple sports. The two cities are very similar on so many levels (population, geography, architecture, both having a large university and a smaller Catholic university, etc.)

(05-22-2020 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

WVU would have been a better fit. And might have been the team added today. But 9 years ago, markets for conference networks were the prime requirement.

I agree that WV would be a better fit for the SEC than Missouri. But, let's face it, WV has a reputation. A sofa-burning reputation. Missouri smells better.

But that thing about markets - while WV is itself ensconced in Appalachia, its graduates generally leave for two places, Pittsburgh and the Virginia side of Washington DC. You go to Northern Virginia and you will be surprised at how many WV t-shirts you see out and about. There is a market for WV eyeballs in both of those areas.

I have said many times that West Virginia would fit extremely well in the SEC. The rabid fan base, no pro sports, good in both football and basketball, etc. It just makes sense.

(Please don't take me to task for posting this, JRsec.)

(05-22-2020 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have said many times that West Virginia would fit extremely well in the SEC. The rabid fan base, no pro sports, good in both football and basketball, etc. It just makes sense.

(Please don't take me to task for posting this, JRsec.)

Yes, WV has those things, but there is also a cultural disconnect between WV and the SEC. WV is that part of Virginia that seceded from the state rather than join the confederacy. That was a momentous step, as the area we call WV today had been a part of Virginia for 256 years.

The state might be mostly MAGA country, but it is also at heart a Northern state, not a southern one. And southerners can still smell that.

(05-22-2020 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

WVU would have been a better fit. And might have been the team added today. But 9 years ago, markets for conference networks were the prime requirement.

I agree that WV would be a better fit for the SEC than Missouri. But, let's face it, WV has a reputation. A sofa-burning reputation. Missouri smells better.

But that thing about markets - while WV is itself ensconced in Appalachia, its graduates generally leave for two places, Pittsburgh and the Virginia side of Washington DC. You go to Northern Virginia and you will be surprised at how many WV t-shirts you see out and about. There is a market for WV eyeballs in both of those areas.

That reputation is probably why I as a Penn State fan don't care about them as a rival. If Pittsburgh and West Virginia want to restart their rivalry they can go ahead but Penn State-West Virginia? Pass. In the 80's I remember Pitt and Notre Dame first followed by Syracuse. I don't remember much about WV.

(05-22-2020 06:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The lack of a strong, Eastern all sports conference really kills Pitt. Imagine if it had been economically viable for Penn St to anchor such a league:

Penn St
Pitt
Syracuse
BC
UConn
Rutgers
Temple
Maryland
WVU
VT
Miami

Unfortunately, circumstances and internal politics within the Big East prevented that from ever being a reality and rather than be a cohesive, united region the football programs in that part of the country got Balkanized.

To add insult to injury, when the ACC entered into its relationship with ND, Pitt lost that ever important annual game.

Pitt’s biggest draws are Penn St, ND, and WVU. Now they rarely play any of them. Annual games with Syracuse and Miami hardly make up for why was lost. Those were 4th or 5th rate rivalries at best.

It’s too bad that back in 2005, when the ACC was gutting the Big East of its football programs they didn’t have the foresight to expand past 12 to create a Northern and Southern division that could have kept some of those programs together

Schools would have to be equal partners for this to work.

(05-22-2020 03:06 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 need to be more honest about their mistakes as well instead of playing happy families.

I think we all - except radical ACCers from the Carolina Core - agree that the reason the ACC needs a GOR is that (a) it makes considerably less than its competitors, the SEC and B1G, and (b) it is a three-sectioned hydra with grafted-on southern (read Florida) and northeastern wings that have no cultural ties with the Carolina-VA core and thus are amenable to bolting for more money. Who knows, maybe the ACCN is even right now closing that money gap and hence the problem, but probably not.

As for the SEC, the only real mistake I've seen, and it is a mild one, is Missouri. Missouri just doesn't fit as well as we thought it might. They aren't a terrible fit, but they aren't a particularly good one. I'd personally be happy if the B1G or Big 12 took them off SEC hands. That said, if getting Mizzou was the price for getting TAMU, then it was well worth paying, as TAMU has been a Grand Slam, the best post-2009 expansion acquisition that any conference has made.

WVU would have been a better fit. And might have been the team added today. But 9 years ago, markets for conference networks were the prime requirement.

I agree that WV would be a better fit for the SEC than Missouri. But, let's face it, WV has a reputation. A sofa-burning reputation. Missouri smells better.

But that thing about markets - while WV is itself ensconced in Appalachia, its graduates generally leave for two places, Pittsburgh and the Virginia side of Washington DC. You go to Northern Virginia and you will be surprised at how many WV t-shirts you see out and about. There is a market for WV eyeballs in both of those areas.

That reputation is probably why I as a Penn State fan don't care about them as a rival. If Pittsburgh and West Virginia want to restart their rivalry they can go ahead but Penn State-West Virginia? Pass. In the 80's I remember Pitt and Notre Dame first followed by Syracuse. I don't remember much about WV.

Plus, isn't the WV - PS "rivalry" an extremely lopsided one? Penn State probably leads the nation in lopsided rivalries with other P5 teams. The one with Pitt is reasonably close, but WV, Maryland, Syracuse, those are lop-sided.