(05-29-2020 07:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:12 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I'm not sure why Miami thought it had a chance of receiving an ACC invitation in 1990. Quite frankly, I don't think the school has any supporters other than FSU, and they didn't have a vote, even though Bobby Bowden correctly lobbied on Miami's behalf.

Yeah, they seemed to sour their share of programs. It didn’t stop them from the almost cringeworthy obsession of getting into the conference, though. The AD following the school leaders across the country to lobby at their one meeting...

IMO, four certainties to pull from the 80’s were that Miami was dead set on getting into the ACC, it being known UMFL wanted in, their name being a commodity, and their location.

I agree in that I don’t fully understand how their candidacy was so high. I think it was overstated based on the name recognition. There were others out there who seemed to work much better with the ACC schools, like Pitt, who I could see having more support, even if they weren’t trending as high as others by 1990ish.

WVU and PSU aside, I’ve wondered about Navy football having an association with the ACC. If you’re Pitt, you’re in a conference now with Cuse, BC, Louisville, Navy, Miami, ND (here and there)...it’s not *the* ideal schedule, but it sure looks a lot more like a schedule from the 80’s.

Navy could probably hold its own in all sports but basketball in the ACC. But their football stadium is small, similar in capacity to Wake Forest's BB&T Field. Otoh, with Navy onboard, the ACC would have another national brand and a physical presence in the DMV again.

The top school that should've been on the ACC's radar is Penn State. In the 1970s, the Nittany Lions played against Maryland and State pretty regularly. Not sure what went wrong there. I don't recall coming across any article where Bob James, the ACC Commissioner 1971-1987, expressed interest in Penn State. During his era, basketball dominated, and I suppose expansion was not on the table. And by the time Gene Corrigan took over, it was already too late; Penn State was on the path to joining the Big Ten.

IMO, Navy-Marine Corp Memorial is much nicer than BB&T.

What what wrong with PSU is Paterno wanted to run his own conference. They (and really, he, since he ran that athletic department) really weren't seriously looking elsewhere until the early/mid 80s when they new that was never going to happen.

(05-29-2020 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The first game between RU and Pitt wasn't until 1981, and RU was unbelievably awful for most of the time they played accept for a handful of Schiano years. There isn't much nostalgia there.

That shouldn’t be discounted. Looking at their schedules in the 70’s, it’s unbelievable this is a Big Ten school now. It’s not until the Big East that they really ran with the big schools of the northeast more regularly.

(05-29-2020 07:51 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The first game between RU and Pitt wasn't until 1981, and RU was unbelievably awful for most of the time they played accept for a handful of Schiano years. There isn't much nostalgia there.

That shouldn’t be discounted. Looking at their schedules in the 70’s, it’s unbelievable this is a Big Ten school now. It’s not until the Big East that they really ran with the big schools of the northeast more regularly.

In 1977, and as a young man living in Nashville, I met a fellow student whose father had played football on scholarship at Rutgers. I vaguely knew of the school's sports (but not nearly as well as I did those athletic programs at Penn State, Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt).

Years later, I will give RU credit: it is clearly improving its athletics. I've long thought Rutgers could be a legitimate all-round athletic program. As a long-time Indiana fan, I'm happy to have RU in the Big Ten.

(05-29-2020 07:51 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The first game between RU and Pitt wasn't until 1981, and RU was unbelievably awful for most of the time they played accept for a handful of Schiano years. There isn't much nostalgia there.

That shouldn’t be discounted. Looking at their schedules in the 70’s, it’s unbelievable this is a Big Ten school now. It’s not until the Big East that they really ran with the big schools of the northeast more regularly.

You should have seen their stadium in the 80s and 90s.

(05-29-2020 07:38 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 07:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:12 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I'm not sure why Miami thought it had a chance of receiving an ACC invitation in 1990. Quite frankly, I don't think the school has any supporters other than FSU, and they didn't have a vote, even though Bobby Bowden correctly lobbied on Miami's behalf.

Yeah, they seemed to sour their share of programs. It didn’t stop them from the almost cringeworthy obsession of getting into the conference, though. The AD following the school leaders across the country to lobby at their one meeting...

IMO, four certainties to pull from the 80’s were that Miami was dead set on getting into the ACC, it being known UMFL wanted in, their name being a commodity, and their location.

I agree in that I don’t fully understand how their candidacy was so high. I think it was overstated based on the name recognition. There were others out there who seemed to work much better with the ACC schools, like Pitt, who I could see having more support, even if they weren’t trending as high as others by 1990ish.

WVU and PSU aside, I’ve wondered about Navy football having an association with the ACC. If you’re Pitt, you’re in a conference now with Cuse, BC, Louisville, Navy, Miami, ND (here and there)...it’s not *the* ideal schedule, but it sure looks a lot more like a schedule from the 80’s.

Navy could probably hold its own in all sports but basketball in the ACC. But their football stadium is small, similar in capacity to Wake Forest's BB&T Field. Otoh, with Navy onboard, the ACC would have another national brand and a physical presence in the DMV again.

The top school that should've been on the ACC's radar is Penn State. In the 1970s, the Nittany Lions played against Maryland and State pretty regularly. Not sure what went wrong there. I don't recall coming across any article where Bob James, the ACC Commissioner 1971-1987, expressed interest in Penn State. During his era, basketball dominated, and I suppose expansion was not on the table. And by the time Gene Corrigan took over, it was already too late; Penn State was on the path to joining the Big Ten.

IMO, Navy-Marine Corp Memorial is much nicer than BB&T.

What what wrong with PSU is Paterno wanted to run his own conference. They (and really, he, since he ran that athletic department) really weren't seriously looking elsewhere until the early/mid 80s when they new that was never going to happen.

PSU is a big fish among several big fish in the Big Ten. In the ACC, PSU would've been the only big fish until FSU's arrival. The path to the national championship would've been easier for PSU in the ACC. That factor was cited by Bobby Bowden as to why FSU chose the ACC over the SEC. By moving to the ACC, Paterno could've gotten his revenge against the Big East.

(05-29-2020 07:51 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The first game between RU and Pitt wasn't until 1981, and RU was unbelievably awful for most of the time they played accept for a handful of Schiano years. There isn't much nostalgia there.

That shouldn’t be discounted. Looking at their schedules in the 70’s, it’s unbelievable this is a Big Ten school now. It’s not until the Big East that they really ran with the big schools of the northeast more regularly.

Not sure why Rutgers doesn't get much respect. The school has so much potential, but the athletic department has been plagued by horrible hires both administratively and athletically. Hopefully it's turned the corner. I understand Schiano's done a bang up job recruiting in-state talent. Locksley has as well. Of course the issue at both schools is coaching ability.

https://www.nj.com/highschoolsports/2020...-home.html

(05-29-2020 10:43 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 07:38 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 07:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:12 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I'm not sure why Miami thought it had a chance of receiving an ACC invitation in 1990. Quite frankly, I don't think the school has any supporters other than FSU, and they didn't have a vote, even though Bobby Bowden correctly lobbied on Miami's behalf.

Yeah, they seemed to sour their share of programs. It didn’t stop them from the almost cringeworthy obsession of getting into the conference, though. The AD following the school leaders across the country to lobby at their one meeting...

IMO, four certainties to pull from the 80’s were that Miami was dead set on getting into the ACC, it being known UMFL wanted in, their name being a commodity, and their location.

I agree in that I don’t fully understand how their candidacy was so high. I think it was overstated based on the name recognition. There were others out there who seemed to work much better with the ACC schools, like Pitt, who I could see having more support, even if they weren’t trending as high as others by 1990ish.

WVU and PSU aside, I’ve wondered about Navy football having an association with the ACC. If you’re Pitt, you’re in a conference now with Cuse, BC, Louisville, Navy, Miami, ND (here and there)...it’s not *the* ideal schedule, but it sure looks a lot more like a schedule from the 80’s.

Navy could probably hold its own in all sports but basketball in the ACC. But their football stadium is small, similar in capacity to Wake Forest's BB&T Field. Otoh, with Navy onboard, the ACC would have another national brand and a physical presence in the DMV again.

The top school that should've been on the ACC's radar is Penn State. In the 1970s, the Nittany Lions played against Maryland and State pretty regularly. Not sure what went wrong there. I don't recall coming across any article where Bob James, the ACC Commissioner 1971-1987, expressed interest in Penn State. During his era, basketball dominated, and I suppose expansion was not on the table. And by the time Gene Corrigan took over, it was already too late; Penn State was on the path to joining the Big Ten.

IMO, Navy-Marine Corp Memorial is much nicer than BB&T.

What what wrong with PSU is Paterno wanted to run his own conference. They (and really, he, since he ran that athletic department) really weren't seriously looking elsewhere until the early/mid 80s when they new that was never going to happen.

PSU is a big fish among several big fish in the Big Ten. In the ACC, PSU would've been the only big fish until FSU's arrival. The path to the national championship would've been easier for PSU in the ACC. That factor was cited by Bobby Bowden as to why FSU chose the ACC over the SEC. By moving to the ACC, Paterno could've gotten his revenge against the Big East.

FSU didn’t need the ACC for a path to the championship, they already had that. What they needed was an improvement on their all-sports conference with a significant upgrade in hoops.

CrazyPaco Wrote:You should have seen their stadium in the 80s and 90s.

Yeah, allegedly a top item the Big Ten told them to fix when they sent feelers out to the conference. A fine enough venue if your schedule was well sprinkled with Patriot and Ivy League teams. It’s no wonder others may have demanded the Meadowlands. It’s even more ridiculous to me that Rutgers football had any longterm FBS prospects if they did park football up in the Meadowlands.

NJ2MDTerp Wrote:Not sure why Rutgers doesn't get much respect. The school has so much potential, but the athletic department has been plagued by horrible hires both administratively and athletically. Hopefully it's turned the corner. I understand Schiano's done a bang up job recruiting in-state talent. Locksley has as well. Of course the issue at both schools is coaching ability.

https://www.nj.com/highschoolsports/2020...-home.html

I think it’s fair what flack they get. Their ambition is great, and they got on the right side of the D1A/AA track, as well as commiting to the on-campus stadium. Who knows what happens if they took the Big East invite from the get-go, but, even then, they’ve been wanted.

But overall and sustained readiness? Athletic infrastructure? You can’t fault Rutgers on that; it’s on the conferences assuming that risk.

I think a lot of schools fit that potential bill. Problem is, given the politics and snobbery in higher ed, the track isn’t even for all. Kinda like the same way Tulane and Rice sneak into expansion talk while others get no play. I think, to an extent, Rutgers and Louisville are the two biggest winners of the past 20 years: you can be awful in sports but have the best zipcode and strong academics and now call yourself a Big Ten school...the other is not really an academic peer of either of its two previous conference homes, but spends like a mother and makes a mint with devoted fans. Good for them both!

(05-29-2020 10:43 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 07:38 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 07:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 06:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:12 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  I'm not sure why Miami thought it had a chance of receiving an ACC invitation in 1990. Quite frankly, I don't think the school has any supporters other than FSU, and they didn't have a vote, even though Bobby Bowden correctly lobbied on Miami's behalf.

Yeah, they seemed to sour their share of programs. It didn’t stop them from the almost cringeworthy obsession of getting into the conference, though. The AD following the school leaders across the country to lobby at their one meeting...

IMO, four certainties to pull from the 80’s were that Miami was dead set on getting into the ACC, it being known UMFL wanted in, their name being a commodity, and their location.

I agree in that I don’t fully understand how their candidacy was so high. I think it was overstated based on the name recognition. There were others out there who seemed to work much better with the ACC schools, like Pitt, who I could see having more support, even if they weren’t trending as high as others by 1990ish.

WVU and PSU aside, I’ve wondered about Navy football having an association with the ACC. If you’re Pitt, you’re in a conference now with Cuse, BC, Louisville, Navy, Miami, ND (here and there)...it’s not *the* ideal schedule, but it sure looks a lot more like a schedule from the 80’s.

Navy could probably hold its own in all sports but basketball in the ACC. But their football stadium is small, similar in capacity to Wake Forest's BB&T Field. Otoh, with Navy onboard, the ACC would have another national brand and a physical presence in the DMV again.

The top school that should've been on the ACC's radar is Penn State. In the 1970s, the Nittany Lions played against Maryland and State pretty regularly. Not sure what went wrong there. I don't recall coming across any article where Bob James, the ACC Commissioner 1971-1987, expressed interest in Penn State. During his era, basketball dominated, and I suppose expansion was not on the table. And by the time Gene Corrigan took over, it was already too late; Penn State was on the path to joining the Big Ten.

IMO, Navy-Marine Corp Memorial is much nicer than BB&T.

What what wrong with PSU is Paterno wanted to run his own conference. They (and really, he, since he ran that athletic department) really weren't seriously looking elsewhere until the early/mid 80s when they new that was never going to happen.

PSU is a big fish among several big fish in the Big Ten. In the ACC, PSU would've been the only big fish until FSU's arrival. The path to the national championship would've been easier for PSU in the ACC. That factor was cited by Bobby Bowden as to why FSU chose the ACC over the SEC. By moving to the ACC, Paterno could've gotten his revenge against the Big East.

You're coloring the 80s with narratives from that didn't exist then. PSU won two titles in the 80s, and Paterno was still trying to put together his conference through at least 82.

Every year between 73 and 82, the season ending Pitt-Penn State had both teams ranked in the top 20 heading into the game. Four times it was a top 10 match-up. Twice it was a match up of top 5 teams and three additional years one of the two teams was ranked #1 heading into it. The game won Pitt a national title in 1976, won PSU a title in '82, and cost Pitt a title in '81. PSU won another title in '86 in a down year for Pitt. The Big Ten was fairly weak in the 80s. No titles (even the ACC had one) and Michigan, and no one else, finished in the top 5 only two seasons, peaking at 4. No one was looking at the Big Ten and thinking it was a greater obstacle than the independent schedules they were already playing and no one in the northeast was thinking about joining a conference to make their title paths easier or getting "revenge" on conferences that didn't even sponsor football yet. The revenge Paterno wanted was really focused on only one entity.

(05-30-2020 07:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Good for them both!

Nah, **** the cheaters and low-life scum at Louisville. They got into the ACC by cheating their asses off. It’s great evidence for the notion that cheating is never punished.

(05-30-2020 09:20 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  No one was thinking about joining a conference to make their title paths easier.

Yes, the 1980s was the decade of the Independent as far as titles were concerned. Independents won the national title in 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, and 89. "Power" league teams won only three of the decade's titles, in 80 (SEC), 81 (ACC), and 85 (Big 8), as the WAC won it in 84.

Being independent was no obstacle for schools like Pitt, Penn State, Notre Dame, WV, FSU, or Miami to win football titles back then. Those schools started joining Power conferences at the end of the decade because of the changing TV landscape and concerns about their men's hoops, as hoops was dominated by Power leagues at the time.

Imagine if Penn St, Miami, and Florida St had gotten together in the early 80’s to try to build their own Atlantic centered conference. Imagine Penn St as the anchor of a North Division and Florida St and Miami as twin anchors in the South. The’d probably had the strength to eventually bust up the ACC.

Nobody really thought outside of the box in the early 80’s. It would seem laughable for Penn State and FSU to be in the same conference, until the late 80’s when the Metro with Raycom was the first conference that actually tried to do something that ambitious. You might find mention of a smaller Eastern Seaboard Conference predating the Metro super conference, but it was never seriously considered.

I highly doubt Penn State and the Big 10 were in “discussions” in the early 80’s.

(05-30-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:20 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  No one was thinking about joining a conference to make their title paths easier.

Yes, the 1980s was the decade of the Independent as far as titles were concerned. Independents won the national title in 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, and 89. "Power" league teams won only three of the decade's titles, in 80 (SEC), 81 (ACC), and 85 (Big 8), as the WAC won it in 84.

Being independent was no obstacle for schools like Pitt, Penn State, Notre Dame, WV, FSU, or Miami to win football titles back then. Those schools started joining Power conferences at the end of the decade because of the changing TV landscape and concerns about their men's hoops, as hoops was dominated by Power leagues at the time.

The 80s was certainly the decade of independents. But WVU must be excited to learn they won a football title. They did finish 11-1 in 1988, losing in the defacto national title game to #1 ND, and finished ranked 5th behind fellow independents #2 Miami and #3 FSU.

Syracuse also finished 1987 11-0-1 and finished ranked 4th behind independents #1 Miami and #2 FSU. BC even finished ranked #5 in 1985, and that year was ranked best among all independents.

(05-30-2020 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  Nobody really thought outside of the box in the early 80’s. It would seem laughable for Penn State and FSU to be in the same conference, until the late 80’s when the Metro with Raycom was the first conference that actually tried to do something that ambitious. You might find mention of a smaller Eastern Seaboard Conference predating the Metro super conference, but it was never seriously considered.

I highly doubt Penn State and the Big 10 were in “discussions” in the early 80’s.

Penn State actually approached the Big 10 in 1980.

There's a lot of back history to PSU involving Paterno's desire to create his own conference (and yes, as then PSU AD, he penciled himself in as commissioner), the uneven financial structure that was pushed, the "Big 4" agreements in the 60s, how PSU left the Eastern 8 (now called the Atlantic 10) in the 70s that pissed everyone off and destroyed all trust (they later went back when failing a BE invite), and the multiple times they applied to the Big East. There was a lot going on with them. But nothing got serious with the B10 until the late 80s.

(05-30-2020 09:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Imagine if Penn St, Miami, and Florida St had gotten together in the early 80’s to try to build their own Atlantic centered conference. Imagine Penn St as the anchor of a North Division and Florida St and Miami as twin anchors in the South. The’d probably had the strength to eventually bust up the ACC.

Would have never happened with Paterno involved. And in the early 80s, Pitt was a bigger player than FSU or Miami. Pitt wouldn't acquiesce to Paterno's demands for his idea of an eastern conference which is why it never happened. Syracuse, WVU, and BC didn't like its proposed structure either, but would have followed Pitt's lead. And hence, Paterno spent the rest of his life with a major grudge that never dissipated. The fact that he and Jackie Sherrill hated each other didn't help. Wasn't exactly friends with Mike Gottfried either.

(05-30-2020 10:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:20 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  No one was thinking about joining a conference to make their title paths easier.

Yes, the 1980s was the decade of the Independent as far as titles were concerned. Independents won the national title in 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, and 89. "Power" league teams won only three of the decade's titles, in 80 (SEC), 81 (ACC), and 85 (Big 8), as the WAC won it in 84.

Being independent was no obstacle for schools like Pitt, Penn State, Notre Dame, WV, FSU, or Miami to win football titles back then. Those schools started joining Power conferences at the end of the decade because of the changing TV landscape and concerns about their men's hoops, as hoops was dominated by Power leagues at the time.

The 80s was certainly the decade of independents. But WVU must be excited to learn they won a football title.

I didn't say WV won a football title. I said that independence was no obstacle to them winning one, which it obviously wasn't. Notre Dame in 1988 was, just as Miami was for FSU in 1987 and others were for Pitt earlier in the decade.

(05-30-2020 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 10:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:20 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  No one was thinking about joining a conference to make their title paths easier.

Yes, the 1980s was the decade of the Independent as far as titles were concerned. Independents won the national title in 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, and 89. "Power" league teams won only three of the decade's titles, in 80 (SEC), 81 (ACC), and 85 (Big 8), as the WAC won it in 84.

Being independent was no obstacle for schools like Pitt, Penn State, Notre Dame, WV, FSU, or Miami to win football titles back then. Those schools started joining Power conferences at the end of the decade because of the changing TV landscape and concerns about their men's hoops, as hoops was dominated by Power leagues at the time.

The 80s was certainly the decade of independents. But WVU must be excited to learn they won a football title.

I didn't say WV won a football title. I said that independence was no obstacle to them winning one, which it obviously wasn't. Notre Dame in 1988 was, just as Miami was for FSU in 1987 and others were for Pitt earlier in the decade.

I misinterpreted your statement.

(05-30-2020 10:25 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  Nobody really thought outside of the box in the early 80’s. It would seem laughable for Penn State and FSU to be in the same conference, until the late 80’s when the Metro with Raycom was the first conference that actually tried to do something that ambitious. You might find mention of a smaller Eastern Seaboard Conference predating the Metro super conference, but it was never seriously considered.

I highly doubt Penn State and the Big 10 were in “discussions” in the early 80’s.

Penn State actually approached the Big 10 in 1980.

I’ve read that here, and also that they had interest in the ACC (or some in the ACC had interest). I’ve just never seen it in print anywhere else.