I also have No problem with fans from other boards posting here that aren't flaming. I remember coming over here before We got our invite and the fans here showed lots of class and I thank those guys for that.

(07-07-2013 08:53 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Hypothetically, I would imagine that Navy's inclusion and a North/South divisional alignment might be ND's two negotiating conditions for full membership.

What happens to those two things if ND urges them as conditions precedent to full membership. Yes or no?

No.

Why would ND want Navy as a conference mate? I know they play regularly in football but do they play that often in Olympic sports? I didn't see where ND played Navy in any other sport this year. Did ND push to get Navy in the BE?

We have debated the N-S divisions to death. All of the options have their pluses and minuses. I believe with 16 teams, pods would be a better system.

(07-07-2013 08:53 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Hypothetically, I would imagine that Navy's inclusion and a North/South divisional alignment might be ND's two negotiating conditions for full membership.

What happens to those two things if ND urges them as conditions precedent to full membership. Yes or no?

That is a tough question to answer.

On one hand, getting Notre Dame to join the conference as a full member would be a major victory for the ACC. Notre Dame football would give the conference another "anchor" program, boost the prestige/standing of ACC football, and increase the monetary value of the conference's TV contract.

On the other hand, Navy as a full member is a mixed bag. Here are the pros and cons I see to adding Navy

Pros
- Notre Dame/Navy game becomes a conference game (i.e. $$$$)
- puts ACC back in Maryland
- adds another great academic institution
- adds a team that bowls likes to have (if they qualify)

Cons
- sports outside of football are mediocre to flat out terrible
- questions about the ability of Navy football to compete in ACC (e.g. Army in C-USA)

Air Force competes well in the Mountain West conference but the MWC is no where near as tough of a conference as the ACC is. I'm not really sure Navy would accept an invite to the ACC as I think they are happy where they are at right now (football should able to compete in the American and the patriot league allows them to compete in all of their other sports). In the ACC they would be absolutely at the bottom in everything other than football and I suspect they'd probably be close to the bottom most years in football too.

The only way to get even pods in Football without ND is to bring in Navy as Football only for #15 and Cincinnati or UConn as #16. That way You have even # for Basketball and other sports with ND and UC/UConn and Football with Navy and UC/UConn. If ND ever decides to join ACC full time with Football then Navy would be replaced with ND. Agreed to before hand with Navy.

(07-07-2013 12:25 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The only way to get even pods in Football without ND is to bring in Navy as Football only for #15 and Cincinnati or UConn as #16. That way You have even # for Basketball and other sports with ND and UC/UConn and Football with Navy and UC/UConn. If ND ever decides to join ACC full time with Football then Navy would be replaced with ND. Agreed to before hand with Navy.

Having an odd number of teams is really only a problem in football due to the limited number of games. Having an odd number of basketball teams isn't really an issue.

(07-07-2013 01:19 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 04:17 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 12:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  First of all, what are you doing on an ACC board? Shouldn't you be puffing your chest on the American board instead?

I don't have a problem with fans from other schools posting here so long as they remain respectful and aren't here to flame/derail threads/troll/etc. Stxrunner might have had a different opinion than you, but that doesn't mean he is trolling or that he shouldn't be welcome here.

Please take a page out of Jurich's playbook and show a bit more class on here.

Right, someone comes here and starts flaming and I'm to blame. He clearly has no intention of adding anything to the debate, he simply singles me out and attacks what I wrote, yet somehow that's my fault.

I don't post on the non-ACC boards anymore. There's no reason for this Cincinnati fan to post his drivel on the non-AAC boards.

Ok...but in our new home be like TJ....

(07-07-2013 11:09 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:53 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Hypothetically, I would imagine that Navy's inclusion and a North/South divisional alignment might be ND's two negotiating conditions for full membership.

What happens to those two things if ND urges them as conditions precedent to full membership. Yes or no?

No.

Why would ND want Navy as a conference mate? I know they play regularly in football but do they play that often in Olympic sports? I didn't see where ND played Navy in any other sport this year. Did ND push to get Navy in the BE?

We have debated the N-S divisions to death. All of the options have their pluses and minuses. I believe with 16 teams, pods would be a better system.

Navy for football, Georgetown for all other sports. Georgetown is an excellent school and it's in the heart of DC. Not to mention we would simultaneously hurt the Big East and have an easier path to MSG, for those of us who want that.

I wouldn't have a problem with Georgetown other than it would kill the pod set up for 16 in Football.

(07-07-2013 01:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 11:09 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:53 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Hypothetically, I would imagine that Navy's inclusion and a North/South divisional alignment might be ND's two negotiating conditions for full membership.

What happens to those two things if ND urges them as conditions precedent to full membership. Yes or no?

No.

Why would ND want Navy as a conference mate? I know they play regularly in football but do they play that often in Olympic sports? I didn't see where ND played Navy in any other sport this year. Did ND push to get Navy in the BE?

We have debated the N-S divisions to death. All of the options have their pluses and minuses. I believe with 16 teams, pods would be a better system.

Navy for football, Georgetown for all other sports. Georgetown is an excellent school and it's in the heart of DC. Not to mention we would simultaneously hurt the Big East and have an easier path to MSG, for those of us who want that.

This...if GTown balks...ask Nova and/or SJU.

(07-07-2013 03:17 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't have a problem with Georgetown other than it would kill the pod set up for 16 in Football.

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal was Navy for football only and Georgetown for the other sports.

No pod system for bb, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-07-2013 04:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 01:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 11:09 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:53 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Hypothetically, I would imagine that Navy's inclusion and a North/South divisional alignment might be ND's two negotiating conditions for full membership.

What happens to those two things if ND urges them as conditions precedent to full membership. Yes or no?

No.

Why would ND want Navy as a conference mate? I know they play regularly in football but do they play that often in Olympic sports? I didn't see where ND played Navy in any other sport this year. Did ND push to get Navy in the BE?

We have debated the N-S divisions to death. All of the options have their pluses and minuses. I believe with 16 teams, pods would be a better system.

Navy for football, Georgetown for all other sports. Georgetown is an excellent school and it's in the heart of DC. Not to mention we would simultaneously hurt the Big East and have an easier path to MSG, for those of us who want that.

This...if GTown balks...ask Nova and/or SJU.

All of this is predicated on ND joining full-time, which is less likely now that they are in as a partial member and the likelihood of the CFP expanding to 8 teams by the next decade.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't feel compelled to expand ay time soon so hypothetically speaking I don't have a problem with a Georgetown/Navy combo. That would fill in the footprint nicely. My question would be does that combo deliver the DC metro area for football TV and recruiting?

(07-07-2013 05:50 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't feel compelled to expand ay time soon so hypothetically speaking I don't have a problem with a Georgetown/Navy combo. That would fill in the footprint nicely. My question would be does that combo deliver the DC metro area for football TV and recruiting?

Again, this is all hypothetical and predicated on ND joining full-time, which I no longer believe is likely to happen.

While pro sports will still dominate the DC area, let's face it ND, VT, UVa, and Navy will be as potent a college conference contingent as MD, PSU, and Michigan will be for the BiG.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-07-2013 05:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 03:17 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't have a problem with Georgetown other than it would kill the pod set up for 16 in Football.

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal was Navy for football only and Georgetown for the other sports.

No pod system for bb, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

Well if Georgetown, Navy and Cincinnati or UConn were added. that would leave 16 for Football and 17 for Basketball. 16 for POD schedule in Football and 17 for Basketball. Guess 16 worked out in the old Big East for Basketball. Go for it !

(07-06-2013 02:12 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 08:46 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There are however things UC and UConn can do to help themselves. Continue to pursue The Big 12 and Big 10. The ACC has already said that UC and UConn would be there when they were needed. What leaders in Cincinnati and Storrs need to do is make "discussions" with The Big 12 and Big 10 as public as possible. The Big 12 and Big 10 will deny discussions are taking place. It doesn't matter if they are or aren't. UC and UConn just need to create the impression in mass media and the blogosphere that other conferences want them.

I agree with the statement in bold; however, I disagree with everything else you wrote. Stirring up media attention isn't going fix the issues either school has and it isn't going to force the ACC's hand to expand (people running conference don't decide what to do based on message boards or newspaper articles). What both schools need to do is address the issues that kept them out in the first place.

In regards to UC, there are four main problem areas that need to be addressed: athletic budget, facilities for major sports, overall athletic profile, and attendance/community support.

Cincinnati's first major problem is its lack of financial resources. UC's reported athletic budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year was $39,577,731(link). That ranks as one of the lowest athletic budgets in the BCS and puts UC significantly behind Louisville ($84,483,791), Syracuse ($69,187,052), and Pitt ($56,338,449). With such a small budget, UC may not have the financial means to maintain its current success long term.

Cincinnati's second major problem goes back to a decision it made before it entered the Big East. In order to make itself more attractive to the Big East, UC spent $105 million to fund Varsity Village. The project drastically upgraded UC's Olympic sports facilities, increase training facilities for athletes, and really increased the beauty of an already beautiful campus. The problem with Varsity Village is that it a) didn't address the athletic department’s main revenue generators and b) wasn’t fully donor-driven meaning the athletic department assumed millions of dollars in debt. The debt on Varsity Village combined with the lack of investment in facilities for football and men's basketball have been two of the major reason why UC's athletic budget has been anemically small. The good news is that UC has at least taken steps towards addressing the football facilities issue(link). The bad news is that I'm not sure expanding Nippert by only a couple thousand seats and a few dozen luxury boxes is enough to really make all that much of a difference. While it will be a nice bump in revenue, it doesn't really address the perception issues around having a small stadium.

Cincinnati's third major problem is an issue with fan support. UC's alumni association reports that the number of living alumni is more than 260,000 with approximately half (131,000) residing in the greater Cincinnati area (link). Despite a large local alumni base and a tremendous amount of recent success, the Bearcats still struggle to sell out their 35,000-seat stadium on a consistent basis. According to their AD, they were about 83 percent full on their bleacher seating this past season and didn't sell out a single game (link). It isn't like UC was having a bad season either as they started out 5-0 and finished the regular season with a 9-3 record. In 2011, the Bearcats drew only 40,971 fans to watch UC play rival Louisville at 65,000 seat Paul Brown Stadium on a Saturday afternoon (link). Basketball has similar support issues as UC averaged only 8,069 fans in the 13,176 seat Fifth Third Arena last season (link).

Cincinnati's last major problem is that its overall athletic profile hasn't been very good. UC won 8 Big East titles during its time in the league. Compare that to Notre Dame (76), Louisville (58), UConn (41), or Syracuse (27). A large part of that was due to the 2009 decision to reduced scholarship funding for Olympic sports and eliminate all scholarships for men’s cross country, men’s track and field and men’s swimming and diving. However, it also illustrates the point above about how a lack of funding can hurt an athletic department over the long term. UC recently decided to restore scholarships so that should be a good start going forward.

Excellent post UofLgrad. There is no denying my alma mater has had their problems, and you do a good job illustrating them.

Our leadership in the athletic department has been merely passable since we joined the Big East and that certainly has set us back. Our new AD Whit Babcock knows exactly what he is doing and is addressing many of the issues you point out here. Only time will tell.

I certainly had no intention of derailing the discussion, I simply felt compelled to reply to a inaccurate flame post. I don't see why you think I'm trolling gocards#1 as I've stated in other threads I am interested in ACC sports in general, hence why I will pop in every once in a while. I've never insulted UofL and have no ill will towards them. Not once have I done so.

As I stated, I had no intention of derailing any discussion so I see no need to take this any further.

(07-08-2013 10:21 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 02:12 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 08:46 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There are however things UC and UConn can do to help themselves. Continue to pursue The Big 12 and Big 10. The ACC has already said that UC and UConn would be there when they were needed. What leaders in Cincinnati and Storrs need to do is make "discussions" with The Big 12 and Big 10 as public as possible. The Big 12 and Big 10 will deny discussions are taking place. It doesn't matter if they are or aren't. UC and UConn just need to create the impression in mass media and the blogosphere that other conferences want them.

I agree with the statement in bold; however, I disagree with everything else you wrote. Stirring up media attention isn't going fix the issues either school has and it isn't going to force the ACC's hand to expand (people running conference don't decide what to do based on message boards or newspaper articles). What both schools need to do is address the issues that kept them out in the first place.

In regards to UC, there are four main problem areas that need to be addressed: athletic budget, facilities for major sports, overall athletic profile, and attendance/community support.

Cincinnati's first major problem is its lack of financial resources. UC's reported athletic budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year was $39,577,731(link). That ranks as one of the lowest athletic budgets in the BCS and puts UC significantly behind Louisville ($84,483,791), Syracuse ($69,187,052), and Pitt ($56,338,449). With such a small budget, UC may not have the financial means to maintain its current success long term.

Cincinnati's second major problem goes back to a decision it made before it entered the Big East. In order to make itself more attractive to the Big East, UC spent $105 million to fund Varsity Village. The project drastically upgraded UC's Olympic sports facilities, increase training facilities for athletes, and really increased the beauty of an already beautiful campus. The problem with Varsity Village is that it a) didn't address the athletic department’s main revenue generators and b) wasn’t fully donor-driven meaning the athletic department assumed millions of dollars in debt. The debt on Varsity Village combined with the lack of investment in facilities for football and men's basketball have been two of the major reason why UC's athletic budget has been anemically small. The good news is that UC has at least taken steps towards addressing the football facilities issue(link). The bad news is that I'm not sure expanding Nippert by only a couple thousand seats and a few dozen luxury boxes is enough to really make all that much of a difference. While it will be a nice bump in revenue, it doesn't really address the perception issues around having a small stadium.

Cincinnati's third major problem is an issue with fan support. UC's alumni association reports that the number of living alumni is more than 260,000 with approximately half (131,000) residing in the greater Cincinnati area (link). Despite a large local alumni base and a tremendous amount of recent success, the Bearcats still struggle to sell out their 35,000-seat stadium on a consistent basis. According to their AD, they were about 83 percent full on their bleacher seating this past season and didn't sell out a single game (link). It isn't like UC was having a bad season either as they started out 5-0 and finished the regular season with a 9-3 record. In 2011, the Bearcats drew only 40,971 fans to watch UC play rival Louisville at 65,000 seat Paul Brown Stadium on a Saturday afternoon (link). Basketball has similar support issues as UC averaged only 8,069 fans in the 13,176 seat Fifth Third Arena last season (link).

Cincinnati's last major problem is that its overall athletic profile hasn't been very good. UC won 8 Big East titles during its time in the league. Compare that to Notre Dame (76), Louisville (58), UConn (41), or Syracuse (27). A large part of that was due to the 2009 decision to reduced scholarship funding for Olympic sports and eliminate all scholarships for men’s cross country, men’s track and field and men’s swimming and diving. However, it also illustrates the point above about how a lack of funding can hurt an athletic department over the long term. UC recently decided to restore scholarships so that should be a good start going forward.

Excellent post UofLgrad. There is no denying my alma mater has had their problems, and you do a good job illustrating them.

Our leadership in the athletic department has been merely passable since we joined the Big East and that certainly has set us back. Our new AD Whit Babcock knows exactly what he is doing and is addressing many of the issues you point out here. Only time will tell.

I certainly had no intention of derailing the discussion, I simply felt compelled to reply to a inaccurate flame post. I don't see why you think I'm trolling gocards#1 as I've stated in other threads I am interested in ACC sports in general, hence why I will pop in every once in a while. I've never insulted UofL and have no ill will towards them. Not once have I done so.

As I stated, I had no intention of derailing any discussion so I see no need to take this any further.

I have never been able to understand that. UC has an ability to hire football coaches that is absolutely unmatched (I would kill for SU to be half as good), but there are other areas of the athletic dept. that are really, really lacking. I don't get how there can be so much competence in one area, but so much mediocrity in other areas. What's going on/what am I missing?

(07-08-2013 03:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I have never been able to understand that. UC has an ability to hire football coaches that is absolutely unmatched (I would kill for SU to be half as good), but there are other areas of the athletic dept. that are really, really lacking. I don't get how there can be so much competence in one area, but so much mediocrity in other areas. What's going on/what am I missing?

Start hiring MAC coaches. Hell, Nick Saban coached Toledo and Urban Meyer coached BGSU.

(07-08-2013 05:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 03:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I have never been able to understand that. UC has an ability to hire football coaches that is absolutely unmatched (I would kill for SU to be half as good), but there are other areas of the athletic dept. that are really, really lacking. I don't get how there can be so much competence in one area, but so much mediocrity in other areas. What's going on/what am I missing?

Start hiring MAC coaches. Hell, Nick Saban coached Toledo and Urban Meyer coached BGSU.

That's another thing that I have never understood. In the world of non-power conference, I have always thought that the MAC was solid, and recently only second to the MWC (and now 3rd to the AAC), but the MAC remains absolutely solid. I think that they've only lost Temple, which was only briefly kind of a member anyway. You would think that a MAC program would eventually get big enough to be noticed.

(07-09-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  That's another thing that I have never understood. In the world of non-power conference, I have always thought that the MAC was solid, and recently only second to the MWC (and now 3rd to the AAC), but the MAC remains absolutely solid. I think that they've only lost Temple, which was only briefly kind of a member anyway. You would think that a MAC program would eventually get big enough to be noticed.

They did. NIU went to the Orange bowl this year. Which is 1 more than CUSA has ever had.

(07-09-2013 01:00 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  That's another thing that I have never understood. In the world of non-power conference, I have always thought that the MAC was solid, and recently only second to the MWC (and now 3rd to the AAC), but the MAC remains absolutely solid. I think that they've only lost Temple, which was only briefly kind of a member anyway. You would think that a MAC program would eventually get big enough to be noticed.

They did. NIU went to the Orange bowl this year. Which is 1 more than CUSA has ever had.

The MAC has definitely been a feeder conference to C-USA (along with the Sun Belt), and C-USA in turn has been a feeder to the Big East/American. So the pecking order is pretty clear, IMO. The problem with C-USA has been how quickly teams have been called up - very little chance to develop any real SoS. The MAC, of course, achieves SoS by playing Big Ten teams
<it's early, I'm probably rambling>