(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:25 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Thanks for proving my point!

Oh, that’s strange. The Big Ten and Pac 10 held up playoff/championship game progress for years because of their special Granddaddy arrangement. It was sooooo sacred, even until recently when the Rosey wanted to keep their NYD date and tradition and parade and blah blah blah STAB right in the back!

Lol, prove me wrong. Please.

The ACC’s crime is being so slow behind in the expansion process. All the newer schools in the conference were available and discussed in the early 90’s. The Big East was well aware of what they were getting into we they invited Miami basketball (lol) and slapped together a football frankenconference to keep Syracuse and Pitt.

If you can’t recognize the difference, then that’s on you and your blinders.

You're right. Big 10 stabbed Pac 10 in the back. ACC cut off the Big East arms, legs and then gutted them. Big 10 was much worse.

Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  Oh, that’s strange. The Big Ten and Pac 10 held up playoff/championship game progress for years because of their special Granddaddy arrangement. It was sooooo sacred, even until recently when the Rosey wanted to keep their NYD date and tradition and parade and blah blah blah STAB right in the back!

Lol, prove me wrong. Please.

The ACC’s crime is being so slow behind in the expansion process. All the newer schools in the conference were available and discussed in the early 90’s. The Big East was well aware of what they were getting into we they invited Miami basketball (lol) and slapped together a football frankenconference to keep Syracuse and Pitt.

If you can’t recognize the difference, then that’s on you and your blinders.

You're right. Big 10 stabbed Pac 10 in the back. ACC cut off the Big East arms, legs and then gutted them. Big 10 was much worse.

Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

And the SEC just killing off the ACC to help UNC and Co get back to their roots.

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  Oh, that’s strange. The Big Ten and Pac 10 held up playoff/championship game progress for years because of their special Granddaddy arrangement. It was sooooo sacred, even until recently when the Rosey wanted to keep their NYD date and tradition and parade and blah blah blah STAB right in the back!

Lol, prove me wrong. Please.

The ACC’s crime is being so slow behind in the expansion process. All the newer schools in the conference were available and discussed in the early 90’s. The Big East was well aware of what they were getting into we they invited Miami basketball (lol) and slapped together a football frankenconference to keep Syracuse and Pitt.

If you can’t recognize the difference, then that’s on you and your blinders.

You're right. Big 10 stabbed Pac 10 in the back. ACC cut off the Big East arms, legs and then gutted them. Big 10 was much worse.

Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

That (obviously, LOL) would have been good for the Big East football league. But I also think it would have been good for the ACC.

IMO, the ACC is trapped in the GOR-hole largely because it acquired those other Big East schools in 2011 (and BC earlier). Those are basically the bloc of lower-value schools that have the ACC's upper-value schools locked in.

The ACC acquired those schools in, IMO, a belief that an invasion of the Northeast Corridor would bring in massive riches to the ACC and bring them up to keel value-wise with the B1G and SEC. It simply has not turned out to be the case. The ACC has not gotten the market-money from being in Pittsburgh, Boston and New York state. Louisville, invited for its booming football, has, save for a year or two when Lamar Jackson was slinging it for them, hasn't delivered on that. And now those schools are IMO likely clinging desperately to the GOR and Exit Fees to keep the higher-value schools, the ones that invited them, in the conference.

IMO, the ACC was like a snake that swallowed a too-large pig, and is now choking on it. It would be better off it could regurgitate the pig, but its rib cage doesn't work that way, and anyway, the pig is digging in its heels to stay down there. Despite my view that all of them were stronger programs when they were in the Big East.

That said, it will still be better off than the nPAC and nB12.

(08-06-2022 05:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 01:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 01:35 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 12:21 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 10:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  You diverted the attention towards the ACC, which has literally ZERO to do with this thread. It’s pretty simple.

I personally don't feel as if I diverted from the thread at all. That's your opinion and I'll respect that. As argumentative as our conversation has been, it's still been enjoyable, I appreciate that.

It’s fine, if you don’t think bringing the ACC into an unrelated thread is wrong then you should own it and not be surprised if somebody calls out the Big Ten.

Damn, you just keep making up sh*t! Where did I ever act surprised about the Big Ten being called out. Where did I even bring the conference into this? You need to own up to the fact that you aren't making a bit of sense.

Try supporting a team or maybe a few rather than an entire conference, it may help clear your vision.

Talk about "being fun at dinner parties?"

I’m not sure why you’re so flustered. You called out somebody for their fandom because he said we shouldn’t celebrate a long-standing conference’s obvious demise.

You got defensive and deflecting because I called you out. It’s not complicated and I’m not making stuff up. Your quote is all over the place.

(07-29-2022 11:28 PM)Poster Wrote:  Didn’t politics prevent Texas and aTm from moving to any conference without Texas Tech and Baylor in the 1990-94 period?

Wasn’t the Big 8 ultimately chosen because they were the only conference that was willing to take Texas Tech and Baylor?

It’s been almost 30 years. I’m not going to pretend I have all the details correct. But iirc, it was Baylor who made the first move (not counting Arkansas, obviously) when the SWC began falling apart in 1994.

And then UT and A&M both indicated that they were out the door, and so the political jockeying was over who would be #4. I think it came down to Texas Tech or Houston, and TT had more political clout at the time.

Again, all that was a long time ago. If anyone can shed more light on the chronology, I’d be appreciative.

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  Oh, that’s strange. The Big Ten and Pac 10 held up playoff/championship game progress for years because of their special Granddaddy arrangement. It was sooooo sacred, even until recently when the Rosey wanted to keep their NYD date and tradition and parade and blah blah blah STAB right in the back!

Lol, prove me wrong. Please.

The ACC’s crime is being so slow behind in the expansion process. All the newer schools in the conference were available and discussed in the early 90’s. The Big East was well aware of what they were getting into we they invited Miami basketball (lol) and slapped together a football frankenconference to keep Syracuse and Pitt.

If you can’t recognize the difference, then that’s on you and your blinders.

You're right. Big 10 stabbed Pac 10 in the back. ACC cut off the Big East arms, legs and then gutted them. Big 10 was much worse.

Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

(08-06-2022 05:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:59 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 01:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 11:55 AM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  Haha now this is irony!

Maryland pushed for ACC expansion, not big bad UNC/Duke which absorb all the blame for the evil ACC.

Maryland gets their wish, even a northern partner they always pined for, then slyly leaves because they can’t manage their own athletic dept properly.

On a side note, Maryland and what they’ve become is the EXACT reason I have no interest in joining the fabled P2!

Hmm. Still hung up on Maryland. Figures. Take the log out of your eye first. Then maybe you can finally see things how they really are.

NJTerp

I just posted how things really are lol

Maryland jumped for money and it hasn’t paid off performance wise.

*I should say one of my oldest friends is a diehard Terp fan and he and others still aren’t happy with the move. It’s not like fans are experiencing all this wealth.

Your posting “how things really are,” is up for debate, and you’re losing big time. And while I appreciate your unsolicited opinion of Maryland (who I didn’t bring up) is irrelevant to the discussion, except as more evidence of your distorted view of the ACC.

Losing what? Money like Maryland’s athletic department to the point they switched conferences to get pounded by Penn St and Ohio St on a yearly basis?

This is getting fun!

Yeesh. I’m not sure if your obtuseness comes natural or is deliberate. And the fact that you get off on this, is disturbing.

Again, I never brought up Maryland, and could not possibly care what you think of them. If it helps your obsession, Maryland sucks and is naughty, okay?

I was referring to your hypocritical worshipping and bootlicking of the ACC.

NJTerp

(08-06-2022 10:27 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:59 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 01:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 11:55 AM)Pat125 Wrote:  Hmm. Still hung up on Maryland. Figures. Take the log out of your eye first. Then maybe you can finally see things how they really are.

NJTerp

I just posted how things really are lol

Maryland jumped for money and it hasn’t paid off performance wise.

*I should say one of my oldest friends is a diehard Terp fan and he and others still aren’t happy with the move. It’s not like fans are experiencing all this wealth.

Your posting “how things really are,” is up for debate, and you’re losing big time. And while I appreciate your unsolicited opinion of Maryland (who I didn’t bring up) is irrelevant to the discussion, except as more evidence of your distorted view of the ACC.

Losing what? Money like Maryland’s athletic department to the point they switched conferences to get pounded by Penn St and Ohio St on a yearly basis?

This is getting fun!

Yeesh. I’m not sure if your obtuseness comes natural or is deliberate. And the fact that you get off on this, is disturbing.

Again, I never brought up Maryland, and could not possibly care what you think of them. If it helps your obsession, Maryland sucks and is naughty, okay?

I was referring to your hypocritical worshipping and bootlicking of the ACC.

NJTerp

You obviously haven’t been paying attention the last 30 years. UNC has always been a roadblock for ACC expansion. That’s what I was referring to regarding the topic and it actually is “how things are”. Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

The fact you think there is some winner/loser in discussing accurate historical accounts is idiotic. Because you are failing to recognize these basic truths it’s difficult to take you seriously.

(08-06-2022 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're right. Big 10 stabbed Pac 10 in the back. ACC cut off the Big East arms, legs and then gutted them. Big 10 was much worse.

Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

Just so we’re on the same page, the 20 year run of the Big East football conference, which at its inception only included half of its membership as full members and the other half as second tier mercenaries, had more historical significance than the 80 year run of the SWC?

If the ACC wanted to kill the Big East they would have invited Georgetown and Villanova. The Big East still exists in its original organization and guess what, it’s better off!


The reason the ACC is the expansion bully is due to the fact message boards became popular right around the time its expansion occurred. If message boards blew up five, or ten years earlier, the internet would be more level headed in their opinions.

(08-07-2022 08:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

Just so we’re on the same page, the 20 year run of the Big East football conference, which at its inception only included half of its membership as full members and the other half as second tier mercenaries, had more historical significance than the 80 year run of the SWC?

If the ACC wanted to kill the Big East they would have invited Georgetown and Villanova. The Big East still exists in its original organization and guess what, it’s better off!


The reason the ACC is the expansion bully is due to the fact message boards became popular right around the time its expansion occurred. If message boards blew up five, or ten years earlier, the internet would be more level headed in their opinions.

About the bolded, as a hoops league we'd be better off than we were 15 years ago if we still had Syracuse. We'll never be whole without them.

Really, I think the ACC acquisitions from the Big East have been bad for everyone, save for Virginia Tech. Big East football obviously no longer exists so it was bad for it.

The other former Big East schools have lost status in the ACC, their programs have faded. The ACC didn't reap the big windfall from invading the northeast, IMO the ACC would be making the same money per school right now without them. And the core ACC wouldn't be choking on the Big East schools.

VT to the ACC has made sense for all since day one. Other than that, the rest hasn't worked for anyone, IMO.

(08-07-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

For the sake of accuracy, South Carolina has also left the ACC. Obviously that was some time ago, but was at least somewhat influenced by the Tobacco Road schools' influence in the conference (and South Carolina's disagreement with it)

(08-07-2022 09:05 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

For the sake of accuracy, South Carolina has also left the ACC. Obviously that was some time ago, but was at least somewhat influenced by the Tobacco Road schools' influence in the conference (and South Carolina's disagreement with it)

Yeah, good point. IMO, the ACC should have brought in VT and SC when GT was invited.

PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3.

(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3.

Did they? My recollection from 2010-2011 was the PAC tried to expand with several B12 teams, including TX and OU, but it just didn't work out. Am I remembering wrong?

(08-07-2022 09:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 08:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

Just so we’re on the same page, the 20 year run of the Big East football conference, which at its inception only included half of its membership as full members and the other half as second tier mercenaries, had more historical significance than the 80 year run of the SWC?

If the ACC wanted to kill the Big East they would have invited Georgetown and Villanova. The Big East still exists in its original organization and guess what, it’s better off!


The reason the ACC is the expansion bully is due to the fact message boards became popular right around the time its expansion occurred. If message boards blew up five, or ten years earlier, the internet would be more level headed in their opinions.

About the bolded, as a hoops league we'd be better off than we were 15 years ago if we still had Syracuse. We'll never be whole without them.

Really, I think the ACC acquisitions from the Big East have been bad for everyone, save for Virginia Tech. Big East football obviously no longer exists so it was bad for it.

The other former Big East schools have lost status in the ACC, their programs have faded. The ACC didn't reap the big windfall from invading the northeast, IMO the ACC would be making the same money per school right now without them. And the core ACC wouldn't be choking on the Big East schools.

VT to the ACC has made sense for all since day one. Other than that, the rest hasn't worked for anyone, IMO.

Boston College and Syracuse football have become a millstone around the neck of the ACC (Wake Forest to a lesser extent because of a small fan base, but a better than average football team).
The ideal solution would be for Syracuse and Boston College to return to the Big East and replace them with West Virginia and UCF.
Some of the sport teams for Syracuse and Boston College could affiliate with the ACC as long as they liked (lacrosse/soccer/women's lacrosse and field hockey etc.)

This was the Big East could return even stronger and the ACC would become much more regionalized and a better football draw.

(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3.

Texas and OU would have left faster than USC and UCLA.

(08-07-2022 10:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3.

Did they? My recollection from 2010-2011 was the PAC tried to expand with several B12 teams, including TX and OU, but it just didn't work out. Am I remembering wrong?

From my recollection, it did not work out, in part b/c A&M still wanted to get away from UT and go to the SEC. The move appeared to be imminent, b/c Kansas was set to take the place of one of the six schools, one to whom the PAC had raised objections. Planes were in the air, contracts were to be signed, then suddenly it was all off. Afterward, there was considerable message board talk that Dodds called it off b/c A&M preferred the SEC to the PAC and was going to get away from Texas one way or another; there were also intimations that Dodds had played the PAC all along and got the LHN from ESPN. Colorado went to the PAC on its own, with Utah being invited. Nebraska, seeing the instability, took the invitation to the Big Ten that everyone had assumed would be extended to Missouri, and Missouri, after telling everyone in the conference (including Kansas) that it would remain, accompanied A&M to the SEC. Any way, that's the way I remember it going down.

(08-07-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 10:27 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:59 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 01:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  I just posted how things really are lol

Maryland jumped for money and it hasn’t paid off performance wise.

*I should say one of my oldest friends is a diehard Terp fan and he and others still aren’t happy with the move. It’s not like fans are experiencing all this wealth.

Your posting “how things really are,” is up for debate, and you’re losing big time. And while I appreciate your unsolicited opinion of Maryland (who I didn’t bring up) is irrelevant to the discussion, except as more evidence of your distorted view of the ACC.

Losing what? Money like Maryland’s athletic department to the point they switched conferences to get pounded by Penn St and Ohio St on a yearly basis?

This is getting fun!

Yeesh. I’m not sure if your obtuseness comes natural or is deliberate. And the fact that you get off on this, is disturbing.

Again, I never brought up Maryland, and could not possibly care what you think of them. If it helps your obsession, Maryland sucks and is naughty, okay?

I was referring to your hypocritical worshipping and bootlicking of the ACC.

NJTerp

You obviously haven’t been paying attention the last 30 years. UNC has always been a roadblock for ACC expansion. That’s what I was referring to regarding the topic and it actually is “how things are”. Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

The fact you think there is some winner/loser in discussing accurate historical accounts is idiotic. Because you are failing to recognize these basic truths it’s difficult to take you seriously.

I was referring to how the ACC expanded, not why or who supported/opposed it.

I understand the basic truths, but I and those without ACC biases saw their actions for what they are, and see the gross hypocrisy of excusing ACC’s gutting of the BIg East, while condemning the Big Ten’s recent actions.

Anyway, I will leave it at that. I can agree to disagree and accept that the feeling is mutual regarding the personal opinions of each other.

(08-07-2022 08:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Like I said, the Big East trying to start football was bound for failure from the get.

How many years of SWC tradition did the SEC instigate ending? I suppose you'd be an expert on killing conferences. The floor is yours.

Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

Just so we’re on the same page, the 20 year run of the Big East football conference, which at its inception only included half of its membership as full members and the other half as second tier mercenaries, had more historical significance than the 80 year run of the SWC?

If the ACC wanted to kill the Big East they would have invited Georgetown and Villanova. The Big East still exists in its original organization and guess what, it’s better off!


The reason the ACC is the expansion bully is due to the fact message boards became popular right around the time its expansion occurred. If message boards blew up five, or ten years earlier, the internet would be more level headed in their opinions.

The SWC was fatally wounded by the Cowboys and Oilers. That lead to the demise of SMU, TCU and Rice, which dramatically weakened the SWC. OU/UGA's lawsuit just hastened the end. It wasn't a Big 8 raid. It was driven by UT and OU who knew both conferences were doomed as they then existed. The Big 8 had no population and the SWC had half the schools with no fans.

(08-07-2022 12:21 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3.

Did they? My recollection from 2010-2011 was the PAC tried to expand with several B12 teams, including TX and OU, but it just didn't work out. Am I remembering wrong?

From my recollection, it did not work out, in part b/c A&M still wanted to get away from UT and go to the SEC. The move appeared to be imminent, b/c Kansas was set to take the place of one of the six schools, one to whom the PAC had raised objections. Planes were in the air, contracts were to be signed, then suddenly it was all off. Afterward, there was considerable message board talk that Dodds called it off b/c A&M preferred the SEC to the PAC and was going to get away from Texas one way or another; there were also intimations that Dodds had played the PAC all along and got the LHN from ESPN. Colorado went to the PAC on its own, with Utah being invited. Nebraska, seeing the instability, took the invitation to the Big Ten that everyone had assumed would be extended to Missouri, and Missouri, after telling everyone in the conference (including Kansas) that it would remain, accompanied A&M to the SEC. Any way, that's the way I remember it going down.

Or, instead of believing nonsense on message boards, you could just listen to what the Texas president had to say about it. ESPN and Fox told the Big 12 they would get a similar contract, much higher than they were currently earning, so UT could get the same money without the athlete travel, without moving, and, at the same time, through ooc scheduling, get similar schedules to how it would have worked in the Pac 16.