Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: 16th ACC member
This poll is closed.
Cincinnati 37.93% 33 37.93%
Houston 0% 0 0%
Navy (FB only) 6.90% 6 6.90%
TCU 0% 0 0%
Temple 1.15% 1 1.15%
UCF 11.49% 10 11.49%
UConn 9.20% 8 9.20%
West Virginia 33.33% 29 33.33%
Total 87 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Post Reply 
Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
Author Message
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,196
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 933
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #41
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-23-2020 12:15 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Just because Navy can not compete in basketball why do people assume that the ACC would freeze out their other Olympic Athletes.

You can be FB only or all in.
09-23-2020 10:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,963
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 163
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #42
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:52 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  16 is too many, the ACC knows that. They've scuttled a powerful brand for taking ESPN's bait to split up the Big East to save them money.

A 12 team ACC (so long to BC, Pitt, and post-Boeheim Syracuse) would be a powerful combination.

Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2020 10:36 PM by Nerdlinger.)
09-23-2020 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,014
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 656
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:52 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  16 is too many, the ACC knows that. They've scuttled a powerful brand for taking ESPN's bait to split up the Big East to save them money.

A 12 team ACC (so long to BC, Pitt, and post-Boeheim Syracuse) would be a powerful combination.

Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years. For me as a UC fan, I thought the Ohio River quadrant of WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati was just starting to gel and become established as an anchor of football in that conference. I witnessed a lot of people here in Ohio care about BE football that otherwise would not have been in the past... I am no speaking of Cincinnati here I am talking about other parts of the state that would time in for a UC/Pitt or WVU game. The TV ratings for the 2009 UC/Pitt game rivaled the ratings for Ohio State/Penn State game which had been played the week before.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 04:20 AM by CliftonAve.)
09-24-2020 04:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,257
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 95
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #44
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-23-2020 11:40 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane has a near ideal ACC university profile, but needs more seasoning in the American before its athletic programs are ACC standard. The ACC should wait until Tulane is ready - and that will be around 8-10 years provided that Tulane continues to grow (and that may never happen).

Tulane has the academic chops, but not the facilities. Yulman Stadium is great when you're playing SMU, not so ideal playing Clemson.

Devlin/Fogelman/Tulane Gym is insufficient for any major conference.
09-24-2020 06:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,724
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 178
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 04:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:52 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  16 is too many, the ACC knows that. They've scuttled a powerful brand for taking ESPN's bait to split up the Big East to save them money.

A 12 team ACC (so long to BC, Pitt, and post-Boeheim Syracuse) would be a powerful combination.

Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years. For me as a UC fan, I thought the Ohio River quadrant of WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati was just starting to gel and become established as an anchor of football in that conference. I witnessed a lot of people here in Ohio care about BE football that otherwise would not have been in the past... I am no speaking of Cincinnati here I am talking about other parts of the state that would time in for a UC/Pitt or WVU game. The TV ratings for the 2009 UC/Pitt game rivaled the ratings for Ohio State/Penn State game which had been played the week before.

I really enjoyed the 2005-2011 Big East. I was in UG during part of that stretch and watched a lot of college football. I was one of those Ohioans who started following the Bearcats during that stretch. The teams were competitive and the games were exciting. Like you said, the new rivalries that were starting to emerge were fun to watch. They unfortunately lacked the big name programs that could demand big tv dollars which meant the grass was going to be greener on the other side for anyone who left so they couldn’t keep it together. ESPN ultimately decided to kill BE football.

I do wish they had the foresight to bring UCF in as a fb affiliate if not a full member. It would have given USF a true in conference rival and ensured everyone played in FL every single year.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 06:59 AM by Fighting Muskie.)
09-24-2020 06:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 9,739
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 681
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #46
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
I don't see the scenario where any of the service academies ever join a Power 5 conference. Semi-pro sports simply are not what they are about. They don't need the money and in most of their sports they would be hampered by academic and size limitation standards.
09-24-2020 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,938
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1068
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #47
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 04:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:52 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  16 is too many, the ACC knows that. They've scuttled a powerful brand for taking ESPN's bait to split up the Big East to save them money.

A 12 team ACC (so long to BC, Pitt, and post-Boeheim Syracuse) would be a powerful combination.

Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years.

IMO, looking at the Big East of 2005 - 2011 and the AAC of today is instructive in terms of the importance of being comfortable in your conference. Because the Big East was an AQ conference, schools were glad to be there, and that facilitated the gelling of rivalries that you and RU mention here. It was a tight-knit group that pulled together in an "us against the world" kind of way, because there was something to pull together around - that AQ/BCS golden ticket.

In contrast, the current AAC has the ingredients for that, but it doesn't have the same unified feel, because nobody views it as their destination conference. Each school has its own agenda on how to get to a "P" league, so there's always a sense of isolation. Yes, individual AAC games can be very good, there are many good AAC games every year. But they all feel like one-shot affairs, there isn't that sense that they are part of an overarching whole like games were in the Big East. And that just takes something away from the experience. It's kind of like when you are watching the SEC and it's Auburn vs LSU, yes, the game is great on its own terms, but it matters even more because you think of how it "fits in" with what other games are going on and how it all impacts the SEC race, etc.

You had that with the 2005 - 2012 Big East, but not the current AAC.
09-24-2020 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,394
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 462
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 08:57 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I don't see the scenario where any of the service academies ever join a Power 5 conference. Semi-pro sports simply are not what they are about. They don't need the money and in most of their sports they would be hampered by academic and size limitation standards.

Except that Navy DID join then-BCS-Auto-Qualifier Big East, signing paperwork on 24 Jan 2012.

And I hope that "they don't need the money" is not the ill-informed idea that your federal government dollars fund Navy sports.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 organization independent of the U.S. Navy, with operating agreements in place with the U.S. Naval Academy. About 1% of the $40M+ budget is federal, appropriated dollars because some of the coaches and staff ARE also employees of USNA (P.E. department, active duty officers, athletic trainers) and that much of travel costs etc are just inextricable. If the NAAA could get that to zero, they would.
Otherwise, the NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports and provides varying levels of support to club teams, from revenue sports - mainly football.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 02:08 PM by slhNavy91.)
09-24-2020 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,157
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
Navy should be able to hold their own in sports like Cross Country, Soccer, Field Hockey, Volleyball, Wrestling, Baseball, Tennis, Lacrosse, Swimming/Diving, etc. Basketball would be the only issue, and that wouldn't matter in the basketball rich ACC.
09-24-2020 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 582
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 48
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 06:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 04:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:52 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  16 is too many, the ACC knows that. They've scuttled a powerful brand for taking ESPN's bait to split up the Big East to save them money.

A 12 team ACC (so long to BC, Pitt, and post-Boeheim Syracuse) would be a powerful combination.

Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years. For me as a UC fan, I thought the Ohio River quadrant of WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati was just starting to gel and become established as an anchor of football in that conference. I witnessed a lot of people here in Ohio care about BE football that otherwise would not have been in the past... I am no speaking of Cincinnati here I am talking about other parts of the state that would time in for a UC/Pitt or WVU game. The TV ratings for the 2009 UC/Pitt game rivaled the ratings for Ohio State/Penn State game which had been played the week before.

I really enjoyed the 2005-2011 Big East. I was in UG during part of that stretch and watched a lot of college football. I was one of those Ohioans who started following the Bearcats during that stretch. The teams were competitive and the games were exciting. Like you said, the new rivalries that were starting to emerge were fun to watch. They unfortunately lacked the big name programs that could demand big tv dollars which meant the grass was going to be greener on the other side for anyone who left so they couldn’t keep it together. ESPN ultimately decided to kill BE football.

I do wish they had the foresight to bring UCF in as a fb affiliate if not a full member. It would have given USF a true in conference rival and ensured everyone played in FL every single year.

They did. I believe Pitt's chancellor was one of the biggest advocates for adding UCF. usf's president continuously sided with the basketball only schools against adding UCF. UCF was eventually invited to the Big East but between the invite and playing the first season the realignment chaos ensued.
09-24-2020 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,938
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1068
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #51
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 12:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 08:57 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I don't see the scenario where any of the service academies ever join a Power 5 conference. Semi-pro sports simply are not what they are about. They don't need the money and in most of their sports they would be hampered by academic and size limitation standards.

Except that Navy DID join then-BCS-Auto-Qualifier Big East, signing paperwork on 24 Jan 2012.

And I hope that "they don't need the money" is not the ill-informed idea that your federal government dollars fund Navy sports.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 organization independent of the U.S. Navy, with operating agreements in place with the U.S. Naval Academy. About 1% of the $40M+ budget is federal, appropriated dollars because some of the coaches and staff ARE also employees of USNA (P.E. department, active duty officers, athletic trainers) and that much of travel costs etc are just inextricable. If the NAAA could get that to zero, they would.
Otherwise, the NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports and provides varying levels of support to club teams, from revenue sports - mainly football.

Well, it's not "independent of the US Navy". As the website says:

"All negotiations, plans, appointments and acts of the NAAA which directly affect the Naval Academy athletic program are subject to the review of the NAAA Board of Control (Chaired by the Commandant of the Naval Academy) and ultimately the approval of the Superintendent of the Naval Academy."

https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 02:42 PM by quo vadis.)
09-24-2020 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,938
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1068
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #52
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 02:18 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 06:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 04:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years. For me as a UC fan, I thought the Ohio River quadrant of WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati was just starting to gel and become established as an anchor of football in that conference. I witnessed a lot of people here in Ohio care about BE football that otherwise would not have been in the past... I am no speaking of Cincinnati here I am talking about other parts of the state that would time in for a UC/Pitt or WVU game. The TV ratings for the 2009 UC/Pitt game rivaled the ratings for Ohio State/Penn State game which had been played the week before.

I really enjoyed the 2005-2011 Big East. I was in UG during part of that stretch and watched a lot of college football. I was one of those Ohioans who started following the Bearcats during that stretch. The teams were competitive and the games were exciting. Like you said, the new rivalries that were starting to emerge were fun to watch. They unfortunately lacked the big name programs that could demand big tv dollars which meant the grass was going to be greener on the other side for anyone who left so they couldn’t keep it together. ESPN ultimately decided to kill BE football.

I do wish they had the foresight to bring UCF in as a fb affiliate if not a full member. It would have given USF a true in conference rival and ensured everyone played in FL every single year.

They did. I believe Pitt's chancellor was one of the biggest advocates for adding UCF. usf's president continuously sided with the basketball only schools against adding UCF. UCF was eventually invited to the Big East but between the invite and playing the first season the realignment chaos ensued.

Well actually, by the time UCF was invited, the Big East was already in the throes of "realignment chaos", as Pitt, Syracuse, WVU and TCU had all accepted invitations to other conferences.

I do recall the celebrations in Orlando when UCF got the invitation. There was great pride in joining the "AQ Big East". I didn't have the heart to tell my UCF friends that you were joining a Dead Man Walking AQ conference with no hope of actually realizing that dream.
09-24-2020 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,394
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 462
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 02:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 12:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 08:57 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I don't see the scenario where any of the service academies ever join a Power 5 conference. Semi-pro sports simply are not what they are about. They don't need the money and in most of their sports they would be hampered by academic and size limitation standards.

Except that Navy DID join then-BCS-Auto-Qualifier Big East, signing paperwork on 24 Jan 2012.

And I hope that "they don't need the money" is not the ill-informed idea that your federal government dollars fund Navy sports.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 organization independent of the U.S. Navy, with operating agreements in place with the U.S. Naval Academy. About 1% of the $40M+ budget is federal, appropriated dollars because some of the coaches and staff ARE also employees of USNA (P.E. department, active duty officers, athletic trainers) and that much of travel costs etc are just inextricable. If the NAAA could get that to zero, they would.
Otherwise, the NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports and provides varying levels of support to club teams, from revenue sports - mainly football.

Well, it's not "independent of the US Navy". As the website says:

"All negotiations, plans, appointments and acts of the NAAA which directly affect the Naval Academy athletic program are subject to the review of the NAAA Board of Control (Chaired by the Commandant of the Naval Academy) and ultimately the approval of the Superintendent of the Naval Academy."

https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx

Ha ha. I actually had that page open in another tab while I was typing that response. Specifically chose not to talk about governance to keep the focus on funding -- which is 99% self supporting not U.S. Navy / Department of Navy appropriated funds -- to address the error I suspected.
Thanks for your interest in Navy Sports, though.
09-24-2020 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,435
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 144
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 02:18 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 06:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 04:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(09-23-2020 09:17 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Big East Football was greater than the sum of its parts because of the rivalries and the media focus. If you just kept the North East monopoly, you could have let Miami go and all the schools would have been better off collectively. Now, some schools are winners and others are losers. That's Darwinism I suppose, but even a football conference with:

South: Pitt, WVU, UC, UL, USF, UCF
North: RU, UConn, BC, Cuse, Navy (FB only), Temple

That conference would have never lost P6 status in football let alone BBall. Now half those schools are set years back while the others sold out to greed (and obscurity in most cases). ESPN sadly didn't want to shell out two separate contracts and tried to cut costs, diluting the product overall.

It's questionable that a conference like that would have maintained power status in football into the CFP era. And in any case, they lack a monopoly on the Northeast without the strongest school, Penn State.

Under the metrics of the BCS system that conference would still be an automatic qualifier. Had that conference remained, I don’t think the schools would have the authority to blow up the BCS system.

RU is right though, there were some great rivalries there. Obviously you had WVU/Pitt, UC/UL, WVU/UL, UC/Pitt, SU/UConn, SU/Rutgers, UConn/Rutgers.. the first two were much more established that the later but I think those other series were starting to perculate over the years. For me as a UC fan, I thought the Ohio River quadrant of WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati was just starting to gel and become established as an anchor of football in that conference. I witnessed a lot of people here in Ohio care about BE football that otherwise would not have been in the past... I am no speaking of Cincinnati here I am talking about other parts of the state that would time in for a UC/Pitt or WVU game. The TV ratings for the 2009 UC/Pitt game rivaled the ratings for Ohio State/Penn State game which had been played the week before.

I really enjoyed the 2005-2011 Big East. I was in UG during part of that stretch and watched a lot of college football. I was one of those Ohioans who started following the Bearcats during that stretch. The teams were competitive and the games were exciting. Like you said, the new rivalries that were starting to emerge were fun to watch. They unfortunately lacked the big name programs that could demand big tv dollars which meant the grass was going to be greener on the other side for anyone who left so they couldn’t keep it together. ESPN ultimately decided to kill BE football.

I do wish they had the foresight to bring UCF in as a fb affiliate if not a full member. It would have given USF a true in conference rival and ensured everyone played in FL every single year.

They did. I believe Pitt's chancellor was one of the biggest advocates for adding UCF. usf's president continuously sided with the basketball only schools against adding UCF. UCF was eventually invited to the Big East but between the invite and playing the first season the realignment chaos ensued.

Pitt led the charge to add TCU, and then UCF. WVU and Rutgers were on board with UCF. Others, particularly Louisville and USF, were not, nor were the basketball schools, and tried to push Villanova and their "Duke plan" playing in an 18K seat stadium. That was actually the end of the Big East. The fissure caused by that was irreconcilable as the revenue gap growing between the Big East and the rest of the AQs was not going to slow by adding Villanova football.
09-24-2020 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,257
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 95
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #55
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 06:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt led the charge to add TCU, and then UCF. WVU and Rutgers were on board with UCF. Others, particularly Louisville and USF, were not, nor were the basketball schools, and tried to push Villanova and their "Duke plan" playing in an 18K seat stadium. That was actually the end of the Big East. The fissure caused by that was irreconcilable as the revenue gap growing between the Big East and the rest of the AQs was not going to slow by adding Villanova football.

Villanova was one week away from a trustees vote to add I-A football when Pitt submarined the deal by announcing its move to the ACC. The two schools have enjoyed a frosty relationship over the years and the timing was curious, if that.

That would have left Georgetown as the only non I-A football program in the Big East. While it was geographically the closest to the ACC, neither side had interest.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 07:20 PM by DFW HOYA.)
09-24-2020 07:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,724
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 178
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
If the Big East hadn’t been assaulted on 3 fronts I wonder how things would have worked out for them. I wonder if USF would have eventually caved on the UCF issue and then, if their BCS status could be secured, BYU and Boise St as fb affiliates.

I suppose the fairest way to organize things would have been a zipper:

It was inevitable that the house was going to fall. The Big 12 needed a 10th; the ACC was nervous and needed new markets, and the Big Ten saw easy money from T3 sitting there for the taking.
09-24-2020 07:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,938
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1068
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 07:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the Big East hadn’t been assaulted on 3 fronts I wonder how things would have worked out for them. I wonder if USF would have eventually caved on the UCF issue and then, if their BCS status could be secured, BYU and Boise St as fb affiliates.

I suppose the fairest way to organize things would have been a zipper:

It was inevitable that the house was going to fall. The Big 12 needed a 10th; the ACC was nervous and needed new markets, and the Big Ten saw easy money from T3 sitting there for the taking.

The Big East fell apart because it failed to recognize what the ACC understood - there was room for only one "power" football conference along the Atlantic seaboard.

That's why the ACC attacked the Big East in 2003. It thought that by swiping Miami, VT, and BC that it had mortally wounded the Big East football conference. But to their (and really everyone's) shock and amazement, the rump Big East of 2005+ managed to not only pull itself together, but to match the ACC in football performance and arguably best them in hoops performance.

The Big East should have struck first at the ACC circa 2010, but it foolishly thought that after the failed 2003 attack the ACC had agreed to peaceful coexistence.

It was a fatal error.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 07:52 PM by quo vadis.)
09-24-2020 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,435
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 144
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 07:19 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 06:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt led the charge to add TCU, and then UCF. WVU and Rutgers were on board with UCF. Others, particularly Louisville and USF, were not, nor were the basketball schools, and tried to push Villanova and their "Duke plan" playing in an 18K seat stadium. That was actually the end of the Big East. The fissure caused by that was irreconcilable as the revenue gap growing between the Big East and the rest of the AQs was not going to slow by adding Villanova football.

Villanova was one week away from a trustees vote to add I-A football when Pitt submarined the deal by announcing its move to the ACC. The two schools have enjoyed a frosty relationship over the years and the timing was curious, if that.

That would have left Georgetown as the only non I-A football program in the Big East. While it was geographically the closest to the ACC, neither side had interest.

The Big East was never going to survive moving forward with Villanova as a solution for its football problems. It had nothing to do with a relationship between the two schools, or the other football schools that were opposed, or even Villanova itself. It had everything to do with the half-assed "Duke plan" that Villanova came up with...and I don't mean Duke 2020, I mean Duke circa 2000s. Villanova clearly didn't even want to move up. If Villanova has put forth a legitimate plan to move up in an attempt to be competitive and play in an adequate facility, then conversations might have been different, if not still disappointing compared to adding UCF. When UCF was killed and Villanova was pushed, everyone started looking for an exit because the writing was on the wall.

Pitt was actually in conversations with the Big 12 prior to the ACC invite. The only reason it hadn't left already was because it didn't want to be a geographic island in the B12 and was pushing the B12 to take WVU and one of Rutgers or Louisville with it. But Pitt was leaving and everyone was aware that it was just a matter of securing an invite.

And just to be clear, Pitt sent a letter to the Big East in May 2010, and cc'ed Jack DiGioia and John Jenkins, that stated its intended to evaluate other conference opportunities that would arise because, primarily, the lack of being able to obtain commitments to the conference from the other football members. If one was familiar with Pitt's public and private comments prior to this about the conference, the content of this letter was a sea-change, almost shocking. Even public comments from Pitt about the Big East after this were subtle but it was clear something had changed if you were paying attention. Internally, it was obvious, because Pitt was following the lead of others looking for an exit, because frankly, the Big East was no longer viable as a major football conference.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 08:31 PM by CrazyPaco.)
09-24-2020 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,435
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 144
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
(09-24-2020 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-24-2020 07:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the Big East hadn’t been assaulted on 3 fronts I wonder how things would have worked out for them. I wonder if USF would have eventually caved on the UCF issue and then, if their BCS status could be secured, BYU and Boise St as fb affiliates.

I suppose the fairest way to organize things would have been a zipper:

It was inevitable that the house was going to fall. The Big 12 needed a 10th; the ACC was nervous and needed new markets, and the Big Ten saw easy money from T3 sitting there for the taking.

The Big East fell apart because it failed to recognize what the ACC understood - there was room for only one "power" football conference along the Atlantic seaboard.

That's why the ACC attacked the Big East in 2003. It thought that by swiping Miami, VT, and BC that it had mortally wounded the Big East football conference. But to their (and really everyone's) shock and amazement, the rump Big East of 2005+ managed to not only pull itself together, but to match the ACC in football performance and arguably best them in hoops performance.

The Big East should have struck first at the ACC circa 2010, but it foolishly thought that after the failed 2003 attack the ACC had agreed to peaceful coexistence.

It was a fatal error.

07-coffee3

No, the Big East never thought that it was peacefully coexisting with the ACC. Quite the opposite. And it had become a dysfunctional mess, internally. And it would have had no ability to pull ACC members.
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2020 08:10 PM by CrazyPaco.)
09-24-2020 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,257
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 95
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #60
RE: Just for fun: ACC's 16th member
The Big East frayed when the football schools brought in teams with little or no basketball commitment. No one complained when Louisville or Cincinnati came in, but adding teams like Tulane and Tulsa were net negatives for Big East basketball.
09-24-2020 08:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.