(09-20-2019 09:58 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 01:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 11:02 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 07:52 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Their finances are worse than they were before though.

Not only has Idaho lost their place in an FBS conference (and then FBS altogether), but they've also lost their biggest rivalry game and are steadily sliding towards losing top status in their own state.

But why did they go down to FCS to begin with? Because FBS was losing money and was unsustainable for them. They don't move down willingly. Maybe a move to FCS will prove to be a case of frying pan into the fire, but FBS was the original problem.

No. FBS had proven to be sustainable financially as long as they had an FBS home. Unlike NMSU who can make independence work for awhile, the Vandals do not have two historical and regional rivals in FBS who were willing to play them H&H forever. UI is regionally isolated and had the smallest stadium in FBS and hence has significant problems getting home games without the benefit of a conference (whereas NMSU has a legitimate 30,000 seat stadium). True, this problem is because UI did nothing to make their game day facilities FBS worthy over several decades, but FCS has proven to be a financial disaster for Idaho and UI would have been content to solider on and be financially solvent in the AD as a member of any FBS conference. Alas, no current FBS conference wants them.

Part of the issue with Idaho is their facilities. The Kibbie Dome is a serviceable FCS facility, but in pretty much every measure not suitable for FBS. Not only that, there is no way the Kibbie Dome could be made into a workable FBS facility; replacement was the only option and Idaho showed no desire or ability to replace the Kibbie Dome...all they ever did was marginally add onto it. This is a serious issue facing a program without a conference to back them up; what conference wants to take on a program that has shown only a desire to soak up $$$ but no plan to substantially contribute back to the worth of the conference? (This is an issue with UMass as well.) Liberty is almost the opposite; they come to the table with a proven desire to increase the value of a conference; their chances of getting a conference invite are head-and-shoulders above Idaho, NM State, and UMass.

Idaho was trying to play FBS at an FCS level. They are better off in FCS.

You continue my point regarding UI facilities. The Kibbie Dome is not an FBS facility and their basketball arena was a big detriment, too (although they have broken ground on a new BB arena). This is the part of their predicament the UoI could have and should have taken care of if they wanted to be FBS. Rather than fix the game day facilities issues, they made them worse. Not only did they have the smallest stadium in FBS, they actually downsized it. It might not have helped in terms of being more attractive to a conference, but it would have made FBS independence possible. However, UI has fallen considerably in athletic esteem in the region, they are in an unsustainable economic position in their AD, support in terms of attendance and donations has collapsed, and they have not been competitive in FB in the BSC. The only upsides for the Vandals thus far are they are in the only FCS conference that welcomes and wants them, there are a few games now where the few traveling fans UI has remaining can travel to more easily, and UM does help put fans in the seats when they play in Moscow.

I second everything Bronco85 has said in this thread, and it's hard for me to believe anyone has had a worse decade than we have.

On Jan 1, 2010, we were coming off a bowl win and in the best conference alignment we'd ever had, in a western FBS conference with our in-state rival plus teams our fans cared about like Nevada, Utah State, Fresno and Hawai'i.

Today, we're a basket case in an FCS conference with a multimillion dollar athletic deficit.

(09-20-2019 12:51 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  The 'rivalry' talk around that time was mainly because of 2 things:

1) UC-Pitt were repeatedly playing crucial conference games
2) The tension between the Bengals & Steelers that had built for a number of years before then. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are in each other's divison in both MLB & NFL, so there was natural tension there.

It wasn't really a college rivalry at all, but the big games and emotion that go with rivalries was already present, so it had a good chance to develop into one if the added ingredient of time had been present. We even had a hilariously sad trophy already.

But you are correct that UC & Pitt weren't really rivals. I get what you are saying. Rivalries need time and there wasn't near enough of it in the BE.

I suppose I see it from a professional sports perspective but even that’s a little bit overstated.

The Bengals are the Steelers’ third biggest rival in the AFC North behind Baltimore and Cleveland.

The Pirates — and frankly the Reds too — usually stink. How many rivalries can you really have for two teams that are typically out of contention by Memorial Day?

I know they like to bean each other from time to time, but so what? They both always stink.

When Major League Baseball radically realigns in a few years, they’re both going to be broken up for good. Cincinnati will be put in with other Midwestern teams and Pittsburgh will be put in a division with Philadelphia, Washington and Baltimore – I guarantee it.

As for the “River City Rivalry,” the trophy was absolutely hilarious. It was the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. I like this picture where it looks like one of our players is...umm, having a romantic relationship with it.

Cincinnati definitely deserves better than it has gotten so far.

(09-20-2019 07:22 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 09:58 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 01:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 11:02 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But why did they go down to FCS to begin with? Because FBS was losing money and was unsustainable for them. They don't move down willingly. Maybe a move to FCS will prove to be a case of frying pan into the fire, but FBS was the original problem.

No. FBS had proven to be sustainable financially as long as they had an FBS home. Unlike NMSU who can make independence work for awhile, the Vandals do not have two historical and regional rivals in FBS who were willing to play them H&H forever. UI is regionally isolated and had the smallest stadium in FBS and hence has significant problems getting home games without the benefit of a conference (whereas NMSU has a legitimate 30,000 seat stadium). True, this problem is because UI did nothing to make their game day facilities FBS worthy over several decades, but FCS has proven to be a financial disaster for Idaho and UI would have been content to solider on and be financially solvent in the AD as a member of any FBS conference. Alas, no current FBS conference wants them.

Part of the issue with Idaho is their facilities. The Kibbie Dome is a serviceable FCS facility, but in pretty much every measure not suitable for FBS. Not only that, there is no way the Kibbie Dome could be made into a workable FBS facility; replacement was the only option and Idaho showed no desire or ability to replace the Kibbie Dome...all they ever did was marginally add onto it. This is a serious issue facing a program without a conference to back them up; what conference wants to take on a program that has shown only a desire to soak up $$$ but no plan to substantially contribute back to the worth of the conference? (This is an issue with UMass as well.) Liberty is almost the opposite; they come to the table with a proven desire to increase the value of a conference; their chances of getting a conference invite are head-and-shoulders above Idaho, NM State, and UMass.

Idaho was trying to play FBS at an FCS level. They are better off in FCS.

You continue my point regarding UI facilities. The Kibbie Dome is not an FBS facility and their basketball arena was a big detriment, too (although they have broken ground on a new BB arena). This is the part of their predicament the UoI could have and should have taken care of if they wanted to be FBS. Rather than fix the game day facilities issues, they made them worse. Not only did they have the smallest stadium in FBS, they actually downsized it. It might not have helped in terms of being more attractive to a conference, but it would have made FBS independence possible. However, UI has fallen considerably in athletic esteem in the region, they are in an unsustainable economic position in their AD, support in terms of attendance and donations has collapsed, and they have not been competitive in FB in the BSC. The only upsides for the Vandals thus far are they are in the only FCS conference that welcomes and wants them, there are a few games now where the few traveling fans UI has remaining can travel to more easily, and UM does help put fans in the seats when they play in Moscow.

I second everything Bronco85 has said in this thread, and it's hard for me to believe anyone has had a worse decade than we have.

On Jan 1, 2010, we were coming off a bowl win and in the best conference alignment we'd ever had, in a western FBS conference with our in-state rival plus teams our fans cared about like Nevada, Utah State, Fresno and Hawai'i.

Today, we're a basket case in an FCS conference with a multimillion dollar athletic deficit.

You said it better than I. The fact that UI was better off in the SBC for football then the BSC may not be obvious to people who do not follow what has happened to the Vandals since the drop, but it should be clear to anyone the WAC, before it crumbled beneath UI, was the best situation UI football had been in ever. It was arguably better than the PCC. While the schools that lost BCS or Power Conference status have been harmed and have a tough row to ever return to their former status, Idaho has nearly insurmountable hurdles to overcome to get back to where they were less than 10 years ago. I hope your new president and AD manage to defy the odds and return UI back to FBS.

New Mexico State signs a six year bowl agreement with ESPN from 2020-25. It basically guarantees an ESPN run bowl if the Aggies become bowl eligible. I’m really happy for NMSU. Looks like ESPN gave them a lifeline and it coincidentally ends right around the time the Big XII and Pac-12 have to renegotiate their tv deals. If there’s any movement, they might have a home.

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/...384751001/

(09-20-2019 07:26 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As for the “River City Rivalry,” the trophy was absolutely hilarious. It was the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. I like this picture where it looks like one of our players is...umm, having a romantic relationship with it.

That trophy was the butt of many jokes on the old Big East board. IIRC, in addition to being an aesthetic Chernobyl, it weighed about 200 pounds and some guys got injured lifting it.

(09-21-2019 02:35 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  New Mexico State signs a six year bowl agreement with ESPN from 2020-25. It basically guarantees an ESPN run bowl if the Aggies become bowl eligible. I’m really happy for NMSU. Looks like ESPN gave them a lifeline and it coincidentally ends right around the time the Big XII and Pac-12 have to renegotiate their tv deals. If there’s any movement, they might have a home.

If it truly *guarantees* them a spot in some bowl if they become bowl-eligible, not merely consideration as some kind of contingency, then that is indeed a huge coup for NMS and their AD just earned their salary.

(09-20-2019 11:10 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (1) No one that is actually in a P5 conference (e.g. West Virginia, Maryland) could ever be considered a "loser". While fans may bemoan the loss of historic rivalries or the haphazard geography of conference realignment, the economic divide is so massive between the P5 and everyone else that hearing a P5 school complain about its lot in life is like having a billionaire complain about the quality of a high-end steakhouse to the waiter that is living on food stamps or that their life in a deluxe apartment on the Upper East Side of New York is so tough compared to their old mansion in Beverly Hills. Cry me f*cking river! No one has a perfect life, but some problems are waaaaaay worse than other problems... and any problems of the P5 schools certainly don't compare to any G5 schools.

I disagree completely. Is Rutgers making a lot more money than they would in the AAC? Undoubtedly. Are they forced to spend a whole lot more money to keep up with the Joneses in the Big Ten? Yes. And by "keeping up" do we mean "be historically noncompetitive and a national joke?" Yes.

Is Rutgers better off with $80M in annual income, spending $70M, to go 2-10 every year in the Big Ten? Or is Rutgers better off with $20M in annual income, spending $10M, and not being a national punchline in the AAC?

I'd rather be 2-10 in the B1G. All it takes is one coach. And if they have a great season, they're assured a great bowl and maybe even a national title shot.

(09-18-2019 10:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is the school that lost out. Have a better winning percentage since 1999 who plays like a P5 school not inside a P5. They were about to joined the P6 Big East when more schools got plucked from the Big East.

They have a great G5 program but UCF is the current G5 big dog.
They are kinda back to their Big Sky success level 6 titles in 26 years.
Mountain West three titles in 8 years same as Fresno and SDSU in that time frame.
The WAC dominate years with 8 conference titles two BCS and Chris Peterson winning two coach of the year awards left with him.
Those 8 titles in nine years two BCS wins were a great run for a G5 program.
UCF three BCS type games finding success with different coaches is pretty impressive.
UCF has the advantage of market, facilities , recruiting , recent success, academics and recent success.
The MWC lost big time in conference realignment but Boise is still in their best conference they ever PLAYED in .
UCF, Cincinnatti , USF all are P5 level schools who made their push too late.
Boise is a directional lower level school that put all their eggs in the football basket.
And it worked for the most part the school grew and is even national un-ranked in academics vs regional mid pack before.
They cashed in on the Chris Peterson era pretty well.
NDSU has taken the little team that could title.
UCF has taken the best G5 crown in recent years .

(09-21-2019 01:00 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 07:22 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 09:58 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 01:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 11:02 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  No. FBS had proven to be sustainable financially as long as they had an FBS home. Unlike NMSU who can make independence work for awhile, the Vandals do not have two historical and regional rivals in FBS who were willing to play them H&H forever. UI is regionally isolated and had the smallest stadium in FBS and hence has significant problems getting home games without the benefit of a conference (whereas NMSU has a legitimate 30,000 seat stadium). True, this problem is because UI did nothing to make their game day facilities FBS worthy over several decades, but FCS has proven to be a financial disaster for Idaho and UI would have been content to solider on and be financially solvent in the AD as a member of any FBS conference. Alas, no current FBS conference wants them.

Part of the issue with Idaho is their facilities. The Kibbie Dome is a serviceable FCS facility, but in pretty much every measure not suitable for FBS. Not only that, there is no way the Kibbie Dome could be made into a workable FBS facility; replacement was the only option and Idaho showed no desire or ability to replace the Kibbie Dome...all they ever did was marginally add onto it. This is a serious issue facing a program without a conference to back them up; what conference wants to take on a program that has shown only a desire to soak up $$$ but no plan to substantially contribute back to the worth of the conference? (This is an issue with UMass as well.) Liberty is almost the opposite; they come to the table with a proven desire to increase the value of a conference; their chances of getting a conference invite are head-and-shoulders above Idaho, NM State, and UMass.

Idaho was trying to play FBS at an FCS level. They are better off in FCS.

You continue my point regarding UI facilities. The Kibbie Dome is not an FBS facility and their basketball arena was a big detriment, too (although they have broken ground on a new BB arena). This is the part of their predicament the UoI could have and should have taken care of if they wanted to be FBS. Rather than fix the game day facilities issues, they made them worse. Not only did they have the smallest stadium in FBS, they actually downsized it. It might not have helped in terms of being more attractive to a conference, but it would have made FBS independence possible. However, UI has fallen considerably in athletic esteem in the region, they are in an unsustainable economic position in their AD, support in terms of attendance and donations has collapsed, and they have not been competitive in FB in the BSC. The only upsides for the Vandals thus far are they are in the only FCS conference that welcomes and wants them, there are a few games now where the few traveling fans UI has remaining can travel to more easily, and UM does help put fans in the seats when they play in Moscow.

I second everything Bronco85 has said in this thread, and it's hard for me to believe anyone has had a worse decade than we have.

On Jan 1, 2010, we were coming off a bowl win and in the best conference alignment we'd ever had, in a western FBS conference with our in-state rival plus teams our fans cared about like Nevada, Utah State, Fresno and Hawai'i.

Today, we're a basket case in an FCS conference with a multimillion dollar athletic deficit.

You said it better than I. The fact that UI was better off in the SBC for football then the BSC may not be obvious to people who do not follow what has happened to the Vandals since the drop, but it should be clear to anyone the WAC, before it crumbled beneath UI, was the best situation UI football had been in ever. It was arguably better than the PCC. While the schools that lost BCS or Power Conference status have been harmed and have a tough row to ever return to their former status, Idaho has nearly insurmountable hurdles to overcome to get back to where they were less than 10 years ago. I hope your new president and AD manage to defy the odds and return UI back to FBS.

If a stable FBS conference existed for the Vandals resources could have been used differently.
Coastal has spent around fifty to sixty million getting to 19,397 seats.
With a 3200 seat arena but a stable FBS conference to call home.
Idaho spent a little over thirty million on the dome and fifty eight million on the arena under construction.
Idaho could have added five thousand seats and expanded the concourses for less then the cost of the arena.
Basketball could have used a Syracuse type end zone set up with end zone seating in the dome. With a practice facility for a reasonable cost.
Or expand memorial gym to 3200 like CCU has would not have been too expensive. The dome could have been used for the WSU game once every other year.
The situation has not been stable since joining FBS and the Big west.
Two conferences dropping football and the championship game rule changing from twelve to ten killed any momentum.
The WAC Idaho joined if it stayed together the eighty million Idaho has spent would have been spent different.

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Great argument for Temple from UTEPDallas from the other thread, which prompted my OP question.

Quote:Post: #3RE: How Big East conference realignment shaped Rutgers present
As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

With the tire being “this decade” temple is actually in a much better spot now then they were in 2010.

UConn went from being in a bcs bowl and winning two titles to having a struggling soon to be Indy football program and a basketball program trying to rebuild.

Cincinnati went from nearly playing for a bcs title to watching their cross town rival have a currently more relevant basketball squad

USF went from being pegged the next big thing to watching their cross state rival become the next Boise St

Boise st went from Cinderella who was respected by everyone, to just another team.

I think the choices for this title have to come from this list of four. The list cannot include anyone still in a P5 conference, even if their circumstances are less than ideal (WV, MD, NEB, etc).

(09-20-2019 07:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Cincinnati definitely deserves better than it has gotten so far.

I don't know. At least Cincy ran with BE when it had a spot at the majors table. Memphis basketball and ECU football never got to. But, yeah, given what Cincy put into their football from the 90's onward, especially once in the Big East, they proved they could hang in the big time. Dare I say, probably should have Louisville's spot in the ACC...?

^
That story sounds very familiar.

What about Miami...once upon a time in the Big East before expansion they ruled college football. Then they left for the ACC and something happened and now they struggle to defeat a directional Michigan school.

(09-21-2019 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Great argument for Temple from UTEPDallas from the other thread, which prompted my OP question.

Quote:Post: #3RE: How Big East conference realignment shaped Rutgers present
As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

With the tire being “this decade” temple is actually in a much better spot now then they were in 2010.

UConn went from being in a bcs bowl and winning two titles to having a struggling soon to be Indy football program and a basketball program trying to rebuild.

Cincinnati went from nearly playing for a bcs title to watching their cross town rival have a currently more relevant basketball squad

USF went from being pegged the next big thing to watching their cross state rival become the next Boise St

Boise st went from Cinderella who was respected by everyone, to just another team.

I think the choices for this title have to come from this list of four. The list cannot include anyone still in a P5 conference, even if their circumstances are less than ideal (WV, MD, NEB, etc).

To be fair, UCF was seen as the sleeping giant when they came up to FBS before USF football was a thing. They had to watch their rival to the southwest get fasttracked into the BE while they were stuck in the purgatory that was the early 2000's MAC and playing in a stadium where large portions of the potential fanbase were generally afraid to go to for a night game.

(09-21-2019 02:35 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  New Mexico State signs a six year bowl agreement with ESPN from 2020-25. It basically guarantees an ESPN run bowl if the Aggies become bowl eligible. I’m really happy for NMSU. Looks like ESPN gave them a lifeline and it coincidentally ends right around the time the Big XII and Pac-12 have to renegotiate their tv deals. If there’s any movement, they might have a home.

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/...384751001/

Not clear if NMSU has a slot guaranteed.

contract with ESPN Events from 2020-2025 that will allow the network to match the Aggies within an ESPN bowl game should NM State be bowl eligible.

(09-21-2019 10:11 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is the school that lost out. Have a better winning percentage since 1999 who plays like a P5 school not inside a P5. They were about to joined the P6 Big East when more schools got plucked from the Big East.

They have a great G5 program but UCF is the current G5 big dog.
They are kinda back to their Big Sky success level 6 titles in 26 years.
Mountain West three titles in 8 years same as Fresno and SDSU in that time frame.
The WAC dominate years with 8 conference titles two BCS and Chris Peterson winning two coach of the year awards left with him.
Those 8 titles in nine years two BCS wins were a great run for a G5 program.
UCF three BCS type games finding success with different coaches is pretty impressive.
UCF has the advantage of market, facilities , recruiting , recent success, academics and recent success.
The MWC lost big time in conference realignment but Boise is still in their best conference they ever PLAYED in .
UCF, Cincinnatti , USF all are P5 level schools who made their push too late.
Boise is a directional lower level school that put all their eggs in the football basket.
And it worked for the most part the school grew and is even national un-ranked in academics vs regional mid pack before.
They cashed in on the Chris Peterson era pretty well.
NDSU has taken the little team that could title.
UCF has taken the best G5 crown in recent years .

Music chair has stopped. There is only one last seat to P5 to pair with Notre Dame. It is not UCF. It is either Cincinnati or UConn. Most likely Cincinnati. Many AAC fans hope that B1G raid ACC so ACC has to reload with more AAC schools will be disappointed.

(09-21-2019 04:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 07:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Cincinnati definitely deserves better than it has gotten so far.

I don't know. At least Cincy ran with BE when it had a spot at the majors table. Memphis basketball and ECU football never got to. But, yeah, given what Cincy put into their football from the 90's onward, especially once in the Big East, they proved they could hang in the big time. Dare I say, probably should have Louisville's spot in the ACC...?

Louisville got started earlier. Thanks to Bill Olsen we were ahead. Howard took over a program in critical condition in ‘84. We played in a baseball stadium averaging 10K - 12K fans a game. You could get two free tickets with a fill up at the gas station.

Howard did everything to build the program. By 1988 the wins started...

We beat UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech in 1988, Boston College, Kansas in 1989, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Kansas, Boston College and Alabama in 1990, Arizona State, Texas, Pittsburgh and Michigan State in 1993....it took off from there.

The fans contributed money ($135 million) to build the stadium that opened in 1998 with seating of 42K. It was expanded to 55K in 2008 and expanded again to 61K last year.

By the time The ACC needed a program, Louisville was ready. Not sure what Cincinnati’s time line looks like, maybe a UC fan can post one, but I do know what we have in Louisville didn’t happen overnight.

(09-24-2019 07:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  By the time The ACC needed a program, Louisville was ready. Not sure what Cincinnati’s time line looks like, maybe a UC fan can post one, but I do know what we have in Louisville didn’t happen overnight.

No question, Louisville is the recent model for a school building itself up via investments to be "P5 ready" should an opportunity arise. You did the best job of that.

Even then, though, Louisville needed a lot of luck. Despite all the good things you did, and the results on the field, as of August 2012, it looked like Louisville was going to be stuck in the G5. Only the last-second Maryland to B1G move opened up one last slot for Louisville to be chosen for.

Point is, the "build up" route to getting in to a P-league is long, expensive, with a very uncertain outcome.

(09-21-2019 04:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 07:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Cincinnati definitely deserves better than it has gotten so far.

I don't know. At least Cincy ran with BE when it had a spot at the majors table. Memphis basketball and ECU football never got to. But, yeah, given what Cincy put into their football from the 90's onward, especially once in the Big East, they proved they could hang in the big time. Dare I say, probably should have Louisville's spot in the ACC...?

At the time that Louisville was invited to the ACC, it was mostly viewed as a home run.
Nobody questioned it at the time, except WV fans. The only other criticism that came upon the ACC was the ACC was being hypocrites because they ignored academics to invite UL. But no one was saying UL took Cincy's spot. I have seen this a few times now after all the troubles that have taken place at Louisville. But in a few years it will be seen as a home run once again. Nothing against Cincy but I like having Louisville in the ACC, and I think the ACC made the right choice.