Despite the pissing match I think this thread has some merit for discussion. All of the expansion talk always centers on who will come in and make the conference stronger. That's rightfully so because expansion means addition.

At the same time, the strength of the conference lies in other factors which we had discussed here such as the commitment of the current members. No amount of additions in this current landscape are going to overcome a conference without established committed membership.

I think the ACC should have added Pitt and WVU instead of Pitt and Cuse.

Think of the made-for-TV football matchups - WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-UVA, WVU-Miami, WVU-FSU would all IMO draw higher ratings than those teams vs Cuse.

Also, WVU fans are all over the heart of ACC country, and would travel well to the ACC tournament and football championship (if it stays in Charlotte).

(02-02-2012 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think the ACC should have added Pitt and WVU instead of Pitt and Cuse.

Think of the made-for-TV football matchups - WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-UVA, WVU-Miami, WVU-FSU would all IMO draw higher ratings than those teams vs Cuse.

Also, WVU fans are all over the heart of ACC country, and would travel well to the ACC tournament and football championship (if it stays in Charlotte).

So are SU fans. You must not of seen the NC State basketball game earlier this year...

We have a large fan base down the Atlantic coast.

SU has better everything, compared to WVU. More football history, leads all time series. Better basketball, academics, lacrosse, etc.

That's why we were selected.

About TV, WVU vs VT isn't going to generate interest in the northeast. SU vs VT will.

Adding WVU would have been a colossal mistake. One of the common themes the ACC has going for it is that its members care about academics. WVU does not fit the mold. This is not meant to be a "expansion decisions turn on academics" argument. My point is just essentially that this is a common thread that the schools have together and throwing it to the wayside for WVU would have been foolish.

For athletics WVU would have been a slam dunk. For TV, not so much. They are the show in WV and their biggest selling point is probably that they split a share of the Pittsburgh market as well. Still, that's not really a sizable market especially considering your plan would have the ACC adding WVU in addition to Pitt. I think it would kind of be a one or the other scenario if you're just going by TV sets and if that's the case I think you would go with Pitt 10/10 because the school just fits better in the culture of the ACC.

I also think that Syracuse is a good addition. They've got history and I think they will be back in football. In basketball they're obviously an elite program. I think that they can actually get more exposure in NY under the ACC banner. When I was visiting my parents last week in northeastern PA I noticed an ad for ACC basketball on one of the networks there. I had never in my life seen an ad for ACC basketball and had never seen ACC basketball on any network other than ESPN. My guess is that this could be a pre-emptive move to get more eyeballs watching the ACC in the area because they will provide some content when Pitt and Syracuse make the move. This would be huge for Pitt because right now they get 0 marketing in that area. I am assuming similar opportunities could present themselves to households in NY state.

(02-02-2012 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think the ACC should have added Pitt and WVU instead of Pitt and Cuse.

Think of the made-for-TV football matchups - WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-UVA, WVU-Miami, WVU-FSU would all IMO draw higher ratings than those teams vs Cuse.

Also, WVU fans are all over the heart of ACC country, and would travel well to the ACC tournament and football championship (if it stays in Charlotte).

You are entitled to your opinion. But the reality is that SU vs any of those teams would blast any ratings WV would get vs those same teams, once SU returns to its winning ways, and maybe even now with SU having a much larger natural home market, that offsets iWV's probable advantage in national appeal.

Back in the 90's and early 2000's, SU had great ratings when playing Miami and VT and those games were always on major network tv. SU's games used to draw higher ratings than anyone in the BE except Miami. Of course SU was a big deal back then. In a couple of years, I think Doug Marrone will restore SU to its past levels and you will be loving any of those matchups with SU.

(02-02-2012 08:20 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think the ACC should have added Pitt and WVU instead of Pitt and Cuse.

Think of the made-for-TV football matchups - WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-UVA, WVU-Miami, WVU-FSU would all IMO draw higher ratings than those teams vs Cuse.

Also, WVU fans are all over the heart of ACC country, and would travel well to the ACC tournament and football championship (if it stays in Charlotte).

So are SU fans. You must not of seen the NC State basketball game earlier this year...

We have a large fan base down the Atlantic coast.

SU has better everything, compared to WVU. More football history, leads all time series. Better basketball, academics, lacrosse, etc.

That's why we were selected.

About TV, WVU vs VT isn't going to generate interest in the northeast. SU vs VT will.

Actually, I was at that basketball game. But I've also been to football games in Greenville against WVU, and I stand by my opinion.

I also know why Syracuse was chosen above WVU, and why Syracuse was actually wanted over VT, but I think in a football-only bubble, WVU would be a better fit. Obviously, there are many other factors considered, and Syracuse wins in most of those.

I grew up in Upstate NY, my parents were Orangemen season ticket holders back in the day (sec 118), but those glory days are long gone -- it'll take a lot to make the Orange relevant again!

(02-04-2012 03:09 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I grew up in Upstate NY, my parents were Orangemen season ticket holders back in the day (sec 118), but those glory days are long gone -- it'll take a lot to make the Orange relevant again!

Alot like what exactly?

(02-02-2012 01:22 PM)samandrea Wrote:  You are right and I am done pissing! Football needs to improve no doubt, but as bad as it is, still got 2 BCS bids. Why was that? Everything will be fine.

Because despite the handicaps that the ACC continuously throws up in their way two football programs had outstanding years at the same time. That's happened once in the BCS era, so I guess as far as you are concerned we can be happy when it happens again in 2025.

(02-04-2012 09:35 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 01:22 PM)samandrea Wrote:  You are right and I am done pissing! Football needs to improve no doubt, but as bad as it is, still got 2 BCS bids. Why was that? Everything will be fine.

Because despite the handicaps that the ACC continuously throws up in their way two football programs had outstanding years at the same time. That's happened once in the BCS era, so I guess as far as you are concerned we can be happy when it happens again in 2025.

It's clear that you think the ACC is keeping Clemson from competing at the highest levels, and you want to see Clemson leave the ACC. Could you elaborate on what exactly the ACC is doing to keep Clemson and FSU down? I don't recall seeing a lot of tangible reasons for why the ACC is killing football. I do remember you posting about how the refs are not paid well and the officiating sucks. Aside from that, what else?

I'm going to level with you. Right now I believe your reasons (excuses?) are going to be a lot of garbage. I won't speak for everyone in this group, but those of us who remember what it was like to have your school compete as an independent truly felt what it was like to be alone. So when it comes to crappy officiating, the former independents have seen a lot of that before.

Are you upset because you think Clemson is forced to play a more difficult OOC schedule? Most likely, Pitt and Syracuse will be right up there with Clemson because both schools will still need to keep connections with northern BCS schools. If PSU and Pitt play long term again, I don't see Pitt getting rid of ND anytime soon, so that is 2 out of 3 OOC games that will be dedicated to BCS schools.

Are you torqued off over the TV money? OK, I think you have a point there. It's the length of the long term contract that is killing the ACC more than anything. But Clemson is definitely above what I would be considered the "circuit breaker" of the minimum funds needed to compete in big time football. Clemson may not be making Alabama money or OSU money, but it is making good money to hire and retain good FB coaches plus maintain facilities. The only thing Clemson can't do is kick back extra money from athletics to the general school budget like a number of the most powerful schools can.

Do you know what the biggest reason for Clemson not competing at a level high enough to satisfy you and many other Clemson fans? If you said "Clemson", then you would be right. The biggest barrier to Clemson having a powerhouse FB team is Clemson. Just like Pitt has been the biggest barrier that Pitt FB has to overcome. A lot more schools can compete at the highest levels. It's just that these schools are not making the best decisions for themselves. The Orange Bowl should be Clemson's wake up call that it needs to fix itself first.

(02-02-2012 08:59 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think the ACC should have added Pitt and WVU instead of Pitt and Cuse.

Think of the made-for-TV football matchups - WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-UVA, WVU-Miami, WVU-FSU would all IMO draw higher ratings than those teams vs Cuse.

Also, WVU fans are all over the heart of ACC country, and would travel well to the ACC tournament and football championship (if it stays in Charlotte).

You are entitled to your opinion. But the reality is that SU vs any of those teams would blast any ratings WV would get vs those same teams, once SU returns to its winning ways, and maybe even now with SU having a much larger natural home market, that offsets iWV's probable advantage in national appeal.

Back in the 90's and early 2000's, SU had great ratings when playing Miami and VT and those games were always on major network tv. SU's games used to draw higher ratings than anyone in the BE except Miami. Of course SU was a big deal back then. In a couple of years, I think Doug Marrone will restore SU to its past levels and you will be loving any of those matchups with SU.

The key is that there is no way for SU to return to the winning way. I just don't see SU could come back on football field ever because SU is a private institution. Division I football programs need big money. Without state funding, SU will always suck in near and far future. Duke and Northwestern are better private schools than Syracuse and they can't compete with other state schools in their conferences. The only exception is Stanford but it is an exception because endowment of Stanford is comparable to Texas or Florida. The best thing for Syracuse to promote the school is Duke's way. Put all efforts on the basketball court, which is pretty much what Syracuse is doing in the past 10 or 15 years. Just forget the football.

(02-06-2012 06:26 PM)ArQ Wrote:  The key is that there is no way for SU to return to the winning way. I just don't see SU could come back on football field ever because SU is a private institution. Division I football programs need big money. Without state funding, SU will always suck in near and far future. Duke and Northwestern are better private schools than Syracuse and they can't compete with other state schools in their conferences. The only exception is Stanford but it is an exception because endowment of Stanford is comparable to Texas or Florida. The best thing for Syracuse to promote the school is Duke's way. Put all efforts on the basketball court, which is pretty much what Syracuse is doing in the past 10 or 15 years. Just forget the football.

Baylor, Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, BYU, Miami, Boston College, and TCU are all private schools that have been able to compete at high levels recently.

Syracuse can do it too. Just like we did only ten years ago. We never have, and never will, put "all efforts" on basketball. Some people don't realize, that there was a time when SU had more football titles than basketball titles... Even now, they're only tied.

(02-02-2012 08:20 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  Adding WVU would have been a colossal mistake. One of the common themes the ACC has going for it is that its members care about academics. WVU does not fit the mold. This is not meant to be a "expansion decisions turn on academics" argument. My point is just essentially that this is a common thread that the schools have together and throwing it to the wayside for WVU would have been foolish.

For athletics WVU would have been a slam dunk. For TV, not so much. They are the show in WV and their biggest selling point is probably that they split a share of the Pittsburgh market as well. Still, that's not really a sizable market especially considering your plan would have the ACC adding WVU in addition to Pitt. I think it would kind of be a one or the other scenario if you're just going by TV sets and if that's the case I think you would go with Pitt 10/10 because the school just fits better in the culture of the ACC.

I also think that Syracuse is a good addition. They've got history and I think they will be back in football. In basketball they're obviously an elite program. I think that they can actually get more exposure in NY under the ACC banner. When I was visiting my parents last week in northeastern PA I noticed an ad for ACC basketball on one of the networks there. I had never in my life seen an ad for ACC basketball and had never seen ACC basketball on any network other than ESPN. My guess is that this could be a pre-emptive move to get more eyeballs watching the ACC in the area because they will provide some content when Pitt and Syracuse make the move. This would be huge for Pitt because right now they get 0 marketing in that area. I am assuming similar opportunities could present themselves to households in NY state.

It's true Pitt doesn't get much in the eastern part of PA, especially northeastern. However, WVU's share of the Pittsburgh market is pretty small. Honestly, probably about 10-15% at best. Notre Dame has as big, if not a bigger following in Western PA, and that is behind Pitt and PSU which eat up the lion's share. The other issue is WVU has no natural recruiting territory, while Pitt is in a relatively rich area. Pitt may open up PA to a few ACC teams, like Maryland, which traditionally get shut out. WVU is a team with little tradition beyond the last Rich Rod years, so it will be interesting to see how they move forward in a conference where they are a geographical outlier like BC was in the ACC. The obvious issue for Pitt has been coaching quality and stability. The talent has been there, and all you have to do is look up the number of pros, All-pros, and pro-bowl players Pitt has churned out the last 10-15 years, and Pitt is at the top of college football. The ratio of on-field success vs apparent talent that has come through that program is depressing.

(02-01-2012 02:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In fact, I might try to flip WVU.

They'd accept before you got done asking. They may be ok with the Big 12 just to get out of the zombie that is the Big East but the ACC is where they've always wanted to be for the last 60 years and counting.

(02-07-2012 01:32 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 06:26 PM)ArQ Wrote:  The key is that there is no way for SU to return to the winning way. I just don't see SU could come back on football field ever because SU is a private institution. Division I football programs need big money. Without state funding, SU will always suck in near and far future. Duke and Northwestern are better private schools than Syracuse and they can't compete with other state schools in their conferences. The only exception is Stanford but it is an exception because endowment of Stanford is comparable to Texas or Florida. The best thing for Syracuse to promote the school is Duke's way. Put all efforts on the basketball court, which is pretty much what Syracuse is doing in the past 10 or 15 years. Just forget the football.

Baylor, Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, BYU, Miami, Boston College, and TCU are all private schools that have been able to compete at high levels recently.

Syracuse can do it too. Just like we did only ten years ago. We never have, and never will, put "all efforts" on basketball. Some people don't realize, that there was a time when SU had more football titles than basketball titles... Even now, they're only tied.

Agreed. This is the longest down period for Syracuse in their history, but they'll be back.

(02-08-2012 10:16 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:32 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 06:26 PM)ArQ Wrote:  The key is that there is no way for SU to return to the winning way. I just don't see SU could come back on football field ever because SU is a private institution. Division I football programs need big money. Without state funding, SU will always suck in near and far future. Duke and Northwestern are better private schools than Syracuse and they can't compete with other state schools in their conferences. The only exception is Stanford but it is an exception because endowment of Stanford is comparable to Texas or Florida. The best thing for Syracuse to promote the school is Duke's way. Put all efforts on the basketball court, which is pretty much what Syracuse is doing in the past 10 or 15 years. Just forget the football.

Baylor, Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, BYU, Miami, Boston College, and TCU are all private schools that have been able to compete at high levels recently.

Syracuse can do it too. Just like we did only ten years ago. We never have, and never will, put "all efforts" on basketball. Some people don't realize, that there was a time when SU had more football titles than basketball titles... Even now, they're only tied.

Agreed. This is the longest down period for Syracuse in their history, but they'll be back.

Watched "The Express" again today. Don't know if Syracuse will ever be that good again, but it would be really nice if they were!

(02-01-2012 01:22 PM)samandrea Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 01:06 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Nationally college FB #3, college BB #6

Quote:For two months every year, sports fans have to make a decision - watch football or baseball on Sundays? Based on the numbers of Americans who say it's their favorite sport, one would have to assume that football wins hands down. Over one-third of adults who follow at least one sport (36%) say professional football is their favorite sport while just 13% say baseball is their favorite. The gap between the two sports has widened in the past year - last year 31% said pro football was their favorite while 17% said baseball was their favorite sport.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,237 adults surveyed online between December 5 and 12, 2011 by Harris Interactive.

Looking at how other sports fared, just over one in ten sports fans (13%) say college football is their favorite sport while 8% say it is auto racing, 5% each say men's professional basketball, men's college basketball and hockey. All other sports are favorites for 2% or less of sports fans.

13% for college football. 3% more than in 1985.

5% for college basketball, the same as the NBA and NHL but trailing NASCAR. 1% less than 1985.

Looks like y'all bet on a losing hand sheep and blew debils.

Ok, I have to ask. What is it you want the ACC to do to help you? We added FSU, VT and Miami in football. Who else could be added? And I would say, we did not bet a losing hand. Take a look here and tell me who makes the most money in the ACC on football and basketball together. http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...c-10-11-3/

ECU and USM great football and baseball, and improving basketball