(05-09-2019 08:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is a thread on the realignment board about Oklahoma playing Army at Michie Stadium. Pretty much everyone who has ever been there loves the experience.

I know this is a stretch. But what if the ACC added both Army and Navy as football only members? Clearly, Army hasn't been very competitive except for the last few years, and that's not likely to change much in the future. After all, they do have some built in recruiting disadvantages. But the price would be right. They wouldn't need a full revenue share. And having them both means that the Army-Navy game and Notre Dame@Navy would become ACC games for media purposes.

I would petition the NCAA to allow the service academies to play a 13th regular season game to better accommodate the President's Cup games. That exception might be hard politically for other schools to vote against.

This addition would allow a true north-south split at the NC-Virginia border. To make it palatable to UVa and Va Tech, UNC should agree to play each of them OOC every year, and NC State agree to play Va Tech and Duke to play UVa as well. Keep the 8 game league schedule with one crossover (none permanent) each year. Then the southern contingent would only have to travel north once every other year, mollifying Clemson and FSU.

This isn't a perfect solution, but then neither is any other that isn't pure fantasy.

Those schools wouldn't make it long term. They might win the first few years, but they don't have the means to keep up with the Jones' in the conference. There was a recent article in the Captial Gazette where it is pointed out that Navy is struggling in the AAC right now and getting to a point where they can keep up with the Houston, UCF, USF, Cincinnati and Memphis types might not be doable.

If they are struggling in the AAC, it will be even more difficult for them to be competitive on a year to year basis in the ACC.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/sports/nav...story.html

(05-09-2019 08:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Everybody in the ACC b*tched endlessly about the spread option at GT. Beamer called it unsafe several times (presumably running backs cutting and tackling below the waist is magically safe though). Several teams, notably those residing in the Coastal Division in the Triangle, went out of their way to schedule a bye before GT each game. And they got their way most years until a rule change was made. Last year they introduced the "Paul Johnson Rule" for blocking below the waist 5 yards downfield. Because we all know how good refs are at calling an imaginary line that moves with every down. Just look at all those ineligible receiver calls on linemen, right?

The b*tching over TWO option teams would be deafening. Even though I think Army and Navy FB only would be a undervalued asset on TV due to the AFN and wide distribution of alumni, I don't see it getting past the crying. And those who run NFL factory farms will make whatever rule changes are necessary to neuter the option so that their NFL prospects can't get shamed by being cut and then blown by while on their backside.

It would be a tremendous way to level the playing field and it should be perfectly legal. But the people with the levers on power in this sport don't want to have to put up with it. And there effectively isn't a lobbying arm for the option in football. With Paul Johnson's retirement went the only plausible beach head to push back on rule changes.

From a PR standpoint, it's a lot easier to (publicly) b*tch about GT using the spread than the service academies. For schools like Clemson and FSU, they would trade off seeing the spread once every four years against getting GT, Miami and UNC in their division. And GT could hardly argue against adding option teams.

The NC schools all get reunited in the same division helping to get their votes. This takes West Virginia's baggage off the table for the northeast teams who don't want to travel to a hostile fan environment. And Army resumes regional rivalries with Syracuse and BC. There may be fewer "no" votes than one might think.

I commented on that thread about Oklahoma going to Michie Stadium, and I loved going there to watch a football game .... I love Army, and Navy too, but ... no thanks to joining the ACC.

I honestly don't think either would want a spot in the ACC. I know Army has resisted those ovations in the past, after their experience in the old CUSA which featured Louisville and many of the teams in the current AAC.

Leave Army and Navy as they are.

If the ACC expands, it should be with schools that want to aspire to be the best in the nation ... in every sport and endeavor. See Clemson in football. See Duke in hoops. Those are the levels we need new members to aspire to. There are a handful of G5 schools that fit this criteria. Army and Navy aren't in that handful.

(05-09-2019 10:05 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  I commented on that thread about Oklahoma going to Michie Stadium, and I loved going there to watch a football game .... I love Army, and Navy too, but ... no thanks to joining the ACC.

I honestly don't think either would want a spot in the ACC. I know Army has resisted those ovations in the past, after their experience in the old CUSA which featured Louisville and many of the teams in the current AAC.

Leave Army and Navy as they are.

If the ACC expands, it should be with schools that want to aspire to be the best in the nation ... in every sport and endeavor. See Clemson in football. See Duke in hoops. Those are the levels we need new members to aspire to. There are a handful of G5 schools that fit this criteria. Army and Navy aren't in that handful.

I, too, question whether the academies want to be in a P5 conference. There are two excellent reasons why they wouldn't. They risk getting physically beat up, and they lose the ability to schedule from coast to coast for the exposure that brings to their unique status. They aren't just recruiting athletes, they are recruiting officers.

I also question whether there are any G5 schools that truly meet the championship aspiration test. By that test, it seems to me expansion is done.

(05-09-2019 10:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 10:05 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  I commented on that thread about Oklahoma going to Michie Stadium, and I loved going there to watch a football game .... I love Army, and Navy too, but ... no thanks to joining the ACC.

I honestly don't think either would want a spot in the ACC. I know Army has resisted those ovations in the past, after their experience in the old CUSA which featured Louisville and many of the teams in the current AAC.

Leave Army and Navy as they are.

If the ACC expands, it should be with schools that want to aspire to be the best in the nation ... in every sport and endeavor. See Clemson in football. See Duke in hoops. Those are the levels we need new members to aspire to. There are a handful of G5 schools that fit this criteria. Army and Navy aren't in that handful.

I, too, question whether the academies want to be in a P5 conference. There are two excellent reasons why they wouldn't. They risk getting physically beat up, and they lose the ability to schedule from coast to coast for the exposure that brings to their unique status. They aren't just recruiting athletes, they are recruiting officers.

I also question whether there are any G5 schools that truly meet the championship aspiration test. By that test, it seems to me expansion is done.

IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

(05-09-2019 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

That would be one heck of a conference. Dominant in both fb and bb.

(05-09-2019 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

18 huh .... well ... that would be amazing. But I don't see 18.

I could see the Big Ten snagging Oklahoma and Kansas, which would push Texas to do something ...

And I could see Texas "pulling a Notre Dame" ... which would give the ACC 16 total, and 14 for football with Texas and Notre Dame playing 5 ACC schools a season .. which would be pretty nice.

If the playoff changes requiring conference champs only, then Texas and ND would fill out a full 16. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The Big XII would snap up Houston, Cincy, BYU or Boise State (or both, and if both, add one other - UCF??? Colorado State??) to try and maintain P5 status.

I think you will see Texas as a partial just like Notre Dame.

(05-09-2019 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

West is too strong and stretching to far. I would feed Virginia, Duke and Wake Forest to the beasts:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest, Notre Dame

East: BC, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, Florida State, Miami

(05-09-2019 05:14 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

18 huh .... well ... that would be amazing. But I don't see 18.

I could see the Big Ten snagging Oklahoma and Kansas, which would push Texas to do something ...

And I could see Texas "pulling a Notre Dame" ... which would give the ACC 16 total, and 14 for football with Texas and Notre Dame playing 5 ACC schools a season .. which would be pretty nice.

If the playoff changes requiring conference champs only, then Texas and ND would fill out a full 16. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The Big XII would snap up Houston, Cincy, BYU or Boise State (or both, and if both, add one other - UCF??? Colorado State??) to try and maintain P5 status.

Your scenario is very plausible. I think UT will move first though.

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Sigh.... look, I've already been on record as saying UC will never be invited to the ACC, and I also doubt we will ever be invited to any other power conference for that matter. That being said, I feel I need to educate you further on this. I've noticed you you really seem to have a burr up your arse about UC as every time the school is mentioned you are among the first to come in to shyte all over it.

Yes, UC stunk up the place its first few years in the Big East- but there is so much more to the story. The school placed itself on a self-imposed Death Penalty. It didn't allow Huggins and Andy Kennedy recruit for 2 full seasons. When the school let AK go and hired Mick Cronin, we had a couple guys transfer out. UC had one scholarship player on its team its first year, and filled out the roster with some football players and guys they picked up from DII and the NAIA since it was done so late in the game. That team went out and got its teeth kicked in and it took the program several years to build itself back up to contend in a super competitive league (there were other factors going on as well such as negative recruiting by Huggins and AK who were telling recruits not to come here).

There's actually a book out about this period "The Forgotten Bearcats".

UC has made the NCAA tournament 9 years in a row. It is among a hand full of schools in the country to have an active streak this long. Yes, a lot of this can be attributed to the fact we have been stuck in the AAC since 2013, but the fact is the school was winning in the Big East the last few years of the conference existence, going so far as winning a share of the conference one year.

(05-10-2019 08:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Sigh.... look, I've already been on record as saying UC will never be invited to the ACC, and I also doubt we will ever be invited to any other power conference for that matter. That being said, I feel I need to educate you further on this. I've noticed you you really seem to have a burr up your arse about UC as every time the school is mentioned you are among the first to come in to shyte all over it.

Yes, UC stunk up the place its first few years in the Big East- but there is so much more to the story. The school placed itself on a self-imposed Death Penalty. It didn't allow Huggins and Andy Kennedy recruit for 2 full seasons. When the school let AK go and hired Mick Cronin, we had a couple guys transfer out. UC had one scholarship player on its team its first year, and filled out the roster with some football players and guys they picked up from DII and the NAIA since it was done so late in the game. That team went out and got its teeth kicked in and it took the program several years to build itself back up to contend in a super competitive league (there were other factors going on as well such as negative recruiting by Huggins and AK who were telling recruits not to come here).

There's actually a book out about this period "The Forgotten Bearcats".

UC has made the NCAA tournament 9 years in a row. It is among a hand full of schools in the country to have an active streak this long. Yes, a lot of this can be attributed to the fact we have been stuck in the AAC since 2013, but the fact is the school was winning in the Big East the last few years of the conference existence, going so far as winning a share of the conference one year.

Esayem also conveniently overlooks UC's football record in the Big East and since, excluding those dark years when we were saddled with Whit Babcock's sorry choice for a good-old-boy, aw-shucks, toe-in-the-dirt coach. Operating within the constraints of a paltry G5 budget, I'd say UC teams offer more bang for the buck than any P5 school (half of which, by definition, are below average), and UC student-athletes also have to contend with the distractions of attending class, submitting term papers, and taking exams.

(05-10-2019 08:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Sigh.... look, I've already been on record as saying UC will never be invited to the ACC, and I also doubt we will ever be invited to any other power conference for that matter. That being said, I feel I need to educate you further on this. I've noticed you you really seem to have a burr up your arse about UC as every time the school is mentioned you are among the first to come in to shyte all over it.

Yes, UC stunk up the place its first few years in the Big East- but there is so much more to the story. The school placed itself on a self-imposed Death Penalty. It didn't allow Huggins and Andy Kennedy recruit for 2 full seasons. When the school let AK go and hired Mick Cronin, we had a couple guys transfer out. UC had one scholarship player on its team its first year, and filled out the roster with some football players and guys they picked up from DII and the NAIA since it was done so late in the game. That team went out and got its teeth kicked in and it took the program several years to build itself back up to contend in a super competitive league (there were other factors going on as well such as negative recruiting by Huggins and AK who were telling recruits not to come here).

There's actually a book out about this period "The Forgotten Bearcats".

UC has made the NCAA tournament 9 years in a row. It is among a hand full of schools in the country to have an active streak this long. Yes, a lot of this can be attributed to the fact we have been stuck in the AAC since 2013, but the fact is the school was winning in the Big East the last few years of the conference existence, going so far as winning a share of the conference one year.

What year was that? When I read this bolded statement, I was thinking that I dont remember Cinci ever being in the running for a BE championship when SU, Pitt and ND were all still there. This data from Wiki seems to be in alignment with my thinking

WIKI

(05-10-2019 09:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-10-2019 08:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Sigh.... look, I've already been on record as saying UC will never be invited to the ACC, and I also doubt we will ever be invited to any other power conference for that matter. That being said, I feel I need to educate you further on this. I've noticed you you really seem to have a burr up your arse about UC as every time the school is mentioned you are among the first to come in to shyte all over it.

Yes, UC stunk up the place its first few years in the Big East- but there is so much more to the story. The school placed itself on a self-imposed Death Penalty. It didn't allow Huggins and Andy Kennedy recruit for 2 full seasons. When the school let AK go and hired Mick Cronin, we had a couple guys transfer out. UC had one scholarship player on its team its first year, and filled out the roster with some football players and guys they picked up from DII and the NAIA since it was done so late in the game. That team went out and got its teeth kicked in and it took the program several years to build itself back up to contend in a super competitive league (there were other factors going on as well such as negative recruiting by Huggins and AK who were telling recruits not to come here).

There's actually a book out about this period "The Forgotten Bearcats".

UC has made the NCAA tournament 9 years in a row. It is among a hand full of schools in the country to have an active streak this long. Yes, a lot of this can be attributed to the fact we have been stuck in the AAC since 2013, but the fact is the school was winning in the Big East the last few years of the conference existence, going so far as winning a share of the conference one year.

What year was that? When I read this bolded statement, I was thinking that I dont remember Cinci ever being in the running for a BE championship when SU, Pitt and ND were all still there. This data from Wiki seems to be in alignment with my thinking

WIKI

I stand corrected it was the AAC then (2013-14) season when Louisville and Rutgers were still in the conference (same year UConn won the national championship). Point being UC was competitive starting in about 2008.

I didn't even get into football where the program won the Big East outright in 2008, 2009 and shared a crown in 2012. UC finished in the Top 25 4 times from 2007-2012.

I have NOTHING against Cincinnati. I just don’t think the ACC needs to 1) expand with G5 teams and 2) expand, period. Cincinnati is mentioned the most, more than even UConn (the actual runner-up). So when people are posting nonsense about G5 teams being worthy of ACC expansion, I point out information they may be overlooking. No burr up no arse here, unless you are counting senseless expansion blather.

As far as the football record goes, great, grand, good job there winning the Big East against perennial juggernauts West Virginia and South Florida. The fact remains, I was talking about basketball, which is already becoming unwieldy in the ACC. No more I say, no more! I’d rather see more games against longtime members like Wake Forest, Virginia, and Clemson than add another team to eat up our conference schedule. Is that so hard to understand? Why the need to water down the league more? ANY team “given the chance” could do well here, even ECU, but that’s not the point of expansion.

(05-09-2019 10:43 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:14 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Look, give me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame (football) to the ACC and I promise to never bring up Cincinnati again...

I'll even agree to putting VT in the ACC West:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Louisville, VT, Pitt, BC, Syracuse
East: UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Done.

18 huh .... well ... that would be amazing. But I don't see 18.

I could see the Big Ten snagging Oklahoma and Kansas, which would push Texas to do something ...

And I could see Texas "pulling a Notre Dame" ... which would give the ACC 16 total, and 14 for football with Texas and Notre Dame playing 5 ACC schools a season .. which would be pretty nice.

If the playoff changes requiring conference champs only, then Texas and ND would fill out a full 16. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The Big XII would snap up Houston, Cincy, BYU or Boise State (or both, and if both, add one other - UCF??? Colorado State??) to try and maintain P5 status.

Your scenario is very plausible. I think UT will move first though.

Yeah ... my scenarios is based on Texas having to REACT to movement.

My position is basically that Texas has no reason to move at this point. They have their own network. They call the shots in the conference. And this is despite not being all that good on the football field. So why make a change?

Well ... one thing that forces them to change ... is if Oklahoma makes a move. I think they are not as happy with things. They DON'T have their own network, but they rock the tier 3 rights. Given their success on the football field, they MAY feel like they aren't completely maximizing what they could be generating.

If they move to the Big Ten, suddenly, Texas may need to make a change. This doesn't mean I think they HAVE to make a move. They may say "so what. We can still make the Big XII relevant." And they'd be right.

If they decide to move though, I think they'd prefer the flexibility that an independent schedule allows, with a Notre Dame deal to the ACC. They'd have a great conference to park all their other sports, and have an academic affiliation they'd be proud of, and they'd still get to keep their network ...

But who the hell really knows how this will all shake out.

(05-10-2019 08:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IDK, I think both Cincinnati and Houston have shown that they have aspirations in both football and basketball. To me the question is fan support.

Mark, Mark, Hokie Mark, don't you know the whole 8 seasons Cincinnati played basketball in the Big East, they never finished in the AP top 25 one time? In fact, they only finished above the .500 mark twice. They would get absolutely demolished in the ACC.

Same with Houston, who is also currently padding the win column with chump change. Plus, Houston is an abysmal fit all around, and if this conference wants to go to Texas (I'm off that train), then we know who wears the burnt orange.

Although, both would be excellent options for the BIG XII!

Sigh.... look, I've already been on record as saying UC will never be invited to the ACC, and I also doubt we will ever be invited to any other power conference for that matter. That being said, I feel I need to educate you further on this. I've noticed you you really seem to have a burr up your arse about UC as every time the school is mentioned you are among the first to come in to shyte all over it.

Yes, UC stunk up the place its first few years in the Big East- but there is so much more to the story. The school placed itself on a self-imposed Death Penalty. It didn't allow Huggins and Andy Kennedy recruit for 2 full seasons. When the school let AK go and hired Mick Cronin, we had a couple guys transfer out. UC had one scholarship player on its team its first year, and filled out the roster with some football players and guys they picked up from DII and the NAIA since it was done so late in the game. That team went out and got its teeth kicked in and it took the program several years to build itself back up to contend in a super competitive league (there were other factors going on as well such as negative recruiting by Huggins and AK who were telling recruits not to come here).

There's actually a book out about this period "The Forgotten Bearcats".

UC has made the NCAA tournament 9 years in a row. It is among a hand full of schools in the country to have an active streak this long. Yes, a lot of this can be attributed to the fact we have been stuck in the AAC since 2013, but the fact is the school was winning in the Big East the last few years of the conference existence, going so far as winning a share of the conference one year.

While I tend to agree that UC's chances of getting into a P5 conference aren't great, I don't understand how they get bashed for their on field/court performance. They would certainly hold their own in the ACC in both football and basketball. IIRC, they are the only G5 school to finish in the Top 4 of the final BCS/CFP standings since 2003. There aren't a lot of ACC teams who have accomplished that.

(05-09-2019 10:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 10:05 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  I commented on that thread about Oklahoma going to Michie Stadium, and I loved going there to watch a football game .... I love Army, and Navy too, but ... no thanks to joining the ACC.

I honestly don't think either would want a spot in the ACC. I know Army has resisted those ovations in the past, after their experience in the old CUSA which featured Louisville and many of the teams in the current AAC.

Leave Army and Navy as they are.

If the ACC expands, it should be with schools that want to aspire to be the best in the nation ... in every sport and endeavor. See Clemson in football. See Duke in hoops. Those are the levels we need new members to aspire to. There are a handful of G5 schools that fit this criteria. Army and Navy aren't in that handful.

I, too, question whether the academies want to be in a P5 conference. There are two excellent reasons why they wouldn't. They risk getting physically beat up, and they lose the ability to schedule from coast to coast for the exposure that brings to their unique status. They aren't just recruiting athletes, they are recruiting officers.

I also question whether there are any G5 schools that truly meet the championship aspiration test. By that test, it seems to me expansion is done.

KenD the commandants came to this conclusion prior to the 2011-12 expansion when Air Force was being kicked around for the Big 12. They have other issues as well, but the physical week to week beat down the cadets and middies would take physically is contrary to the mission of the schools which of course is to produce career military officers. But the other reason is the CFP. Not that they would win it, but the second week of January interferes with the schedules of the academies programs.

There are many reasons I don't think they would want a P5 membership.