(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.

How could the Big East have struck first at the ACC circa 2010?

(09-24-2020 08:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(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.

How could the Big East have struck first at the ACC circa 2010?

They couldn't. They had a much lower payout, was trying to serve two masters thus couldn't have developed a cohesive plan, and lack the demographic allure of the ACC, especially when it comes to football recruiting.

I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

BC is a social class thing.

BC is in the ACC due to the conference pursuit of Miami. At the time for what ever reason that was one of Miami request of teams to be pursued.

The ACC has enough highly credible academics schools where they can take on schools like Louisville and others. You can not build a conference with every smart school out there. From the poll the best two options are Cincinnati and West Virginia, but if ever a Notre Dame decides to join they will have the biggest voice in who will be selected as the 16th member.

West Virginia has ties to every school, and fits within the footprint and is known more so as a football first school. Cincinnati would be a good choice giving Louisville an old running mate just up the road, but with the way the ACC schedules the Cards May only see them once in a blue moon. Louisville closes ACC member is VT and we have been in the conference now 5-6 years and this is the first year we are playing them.

Back to topic at hand. West Virginia gives you name recognition on a national scale compared to Cincinnati not so much. You want to sell tickets and build ratings for you network. Just look at this way. What makes you set your DVR so you don’t miss a snap.

West Virginia vs Clemson OR Cincinnati vs Clemson???
Cincinnati vs Florida State OR West Virginia vs Florida State???
West Virginia vs Miami OR Cincinnati vs Miami???
Cincinnati vs Virginia Tech OR West Virginia vs Virginia Tech???
West Virginia vs Pittsburgh OR Cincinnati vs Pittsburgh???
Cincinnati vs Louisville OR West Virginia vs Louisville???

So as you can see West Virginia is the best choice, and who cares about academics when you are comparing SOS’s ranking’s rating’s and so forth. The ACC has enough schools to burden any issues they think these schools will cause to their academic recognition on a national scale, but if they think a academic school such as UConn is the answer then don’t ever question why the ACC will never get a second school in the playoffs vs football first conferences like the SEC and the Big12.

(09-24-2020 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

Frankly, who in the ACC would have been interested?

(09-24-2020 10:12 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

BC is a social class thing.

Donna Shalala and Father Leahy were tight. And remember, it was originally supposed to be BC and a reluctant Syracuse to secure the northeast as a package with Miami. The intent was to cause the Big East to lose their BCS bid so the ACC could, it thought, place two teams in a BCS bowl most years (the thinking was Miami and FSU, which is why they were originally scheduled the game early in the season so that the loser could overcome the early season loss and secure a second BCS bid), but also the move was to essentially usurp a large chunk of the Big East's media contract. This is also why it was attempted to be done at the very last minute of notice of leave (which back then it was only a year, maybe less) in order to cripple the remaining Big East teams' ability to fill scheduling holes and bring in new members. It didn't work out because the plan leaked and the other BCS conferences were so appalled at the ACC's conduct in breaking many unwritten rules of engagement that they passed the "Big East rule" (only one dissenting vote, guess who?) to allow the conference to maintain its bid while it shored itself up. Which the Big East actually did in rallying together and back-filling well with rising programs.

When UVA forced in VT instead 'Cuse, BC was the school that had been collaborating the Miami to leave behind the scenes and was tight with the Miami administration. Syracuse wasn't involved in the back-room shenanigans with Miami and BC. There was no surprise of with BC getting the 12th slot because they were in bed with all the players from the beginning.

But the forces driving huge increases in football money would drive a wedge back into the Big East that was ultimately unrecoverable. Really, the only thing that could have save the Big East at any point was Notre Dame placing its football team in the conference. The Big East needed a dedicated anchor that could drive its football media contracts and that was committed to the conference in a way that Miami was obviously not.

(09-24-2020 10:12 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

BC is a social class thing.

BC is the perfect example of being at the right place, at the right time. The ACC could afford to invite BC at a later time because honestly, what BCS conference was going after them? Certainly not the Big Ten.

If you look at realignment in the last ten years, moves were made because of the changing landscape. Nebraska was concerned Texas and Oklahoma were going to the Pac-10 and get stuck in a diluted Big XII. West Virginia desperately wanted to get away from the Big East once Pitt and Syracuse announced they were leaving and keep power status. Maryland wanted more money. Rutgers was selected because of being in the #1 tv market. Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas. Somebody had to be #12 and Missouri was available. Colorado and Utah helped the Pac-10 consolidate its dominance in the West Coast.

But Boston College in the early 00’s? They were not #12 which could be understandable because you need that school for CCG purposes (at the time) but they were #11 which makes it odd. The fact Syracuse and Boston College were selected instead of Virginia Tech and West Virginia tells you the ACC was all about basketball and not football. Miami was a home run addition at the time (they lost their mojo in the ACC) and Syracuse more or less made sense because they were not far removed from the Donovan McNabb years but BC?

(09-25-2020 12:06 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 10:12 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

BC is a social class thing.

BC is the perfect example of being at the right place, at the right time. The ACC could afford to invite BC at a later time because honestly, what BCS conference was going after them? Certainly not the Big Ten.

If you look at realignment in the last ten years, moves were made because of the changing landscape. Nebraska was concerned Texas and Oklahoma were going to the Pac-10 and get stuck in a diluted Big XII. West Virginia desperately wanted to get away from the Big East once Pitt and Syracuse announced they were leaving and keep power status. Maryland wanted more money. Rutgers was selected because of being in the #1 tv market. Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas. Somebody had to be #12 and Missouri was available. Colorado and Utah helped the Pac-10 consolidate its dominance in the West Coast.

But Boston College in the early 00’s? They were not #12 which could be understandable because you need that school for CCG purposes (at the time) but they were #11 which makes it odd. The fact Syracuse and Boston College were selected instead of Virginia Tech and West Virginia tells you the ACC was all about basketball and not football. Miami was a home run addition at the time (they lost their mojo in the ACC) and Syracuse more or less made sense because they were not far removed from the Donovan McNabb years but BC?

BC and Syracuse were better football programs when they were invited, and BC was under Tom O'Brien and was having 8 and 9 win seasons every year, but it really was about media markets and in BC's case, also pre-established administrative relationships with Miami. Pitt was just recovering from and absolutely awful period in the 90s and had major facility issues, WVU just has no media market and some historic and perceptional issues, and Rutgers, was well, classic Rutgers. VT just didn't fit into the plan of grabbing the northeast media markets and until the governor of Virginia got involved, I'm not sure they had UVA's support.

(09-25-2020 12:29 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 12:06 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 10:12 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

BC is a social class thing.

BC is the perfect example of being at the right place, at the right time. The ACC could afford to invite BC at a later time because honestly, what BCS conference was going after them? Certainly not the Big Ten.

If you look at realignment in the last ten years, moves were made because of the changing landscape. Nebraska was concerned Texas and Oklahoma were going to the Pac-10 and get stuck in a diluted Big XII. West Virginia desperately wanted to get away from the Big East once Pitt and Syracuse announced they were leaving and keep power status. Maryland wanted more money. Rutgers was selected because of being in the #1 tv market. Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas. Somebody had to be #12 and Missouri was available. Colorado and Utah helped the Pac-10 consolidate its dominance in the West Coast.

But Boston College in the early 00’s? They were not #12 which could be understandable because you need that school for CCG purposes (at the time) but they were #11 which makes it odd. The fact Syracuse and Boston College were selected instead of Virginia Tech and West Virginia tells you the ACC was all about basketball and not football. Miami was a home run addition at the time (they lost their mojo in the ACC) and Syracuse more or less made sense because they were not far removed from the Donovan McNabb years but BC?

BC and Syracuse were better football programs when they were invited, and BC was under Tom O'Brien and was having 8 and 9 win seasons every year, but it really was about media markets and in BC's case, also pre-established administrative relationships with Miami. Pitt was just recovering from and absolutely awful period in the 90s and had major facility issues, WVU just has no media market and some historic and perceptional issues, and Rutgers, was well, classic Rutgers. VT just didn't fit into the plan of grabbing the northeast media markets and until the governor of Virginia got involved, I'm not sure they had UVA's support.

With regards to UVA’s support of VT for ACC membership in 2004, the problem in Charlottesville was a lack of passion and foresight. Unfortunately, plain indifference towards athletics is sometimes the MO amongst university administrators. UVA always benefited from ACC membership because it provided more exposure to its athletic programs...a simplistic competitive advantage compared to other state schools. It took the maneuvering of Gov Warner to actually help both UVA and VT. I believe both schools overall athletic departments have blossomed by creating better rivalries. Note, UVA football being the exception because the final years of Al Groh and the tenure of Mike London were dumpster fires (good people, in over their heads).

The VT addition to the ACC has worked out incredibly well. To me, it reinforces that rivalries and regionalism can make college sports so much better. The short-term focus on TV markets is more risky because schools like BC need rivalries to maintain their competitive drive.

(09-24-2020 08:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(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.

How could the Big East have struck first at the ACC circa 2010?

Should have said early 2011, when they got their TV offer from ESPN that was basically the same deal the ACC got in 2010.

May not have worked, but it would have been better than sitting there waiting for the ACC to take another headshot. The ACC was not at a high-point in any way at that time.

By the way the Big East is doing fine in 2020. UConn's back, so that's a plus.

Syracuse is missed. No one misses Boston College.

(09-25-2020 09:26 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  By the way the Big East is doing fine in 2020. UConn's back, so that's a plus.

Syracuse is missed. No one misses Boston College.

What about Pitt?

(09-25-2020 09:29 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  What about Pitt?

Not missed. Not one of the originals.

(09-24-2020 10:26 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  BC is in the ACC due to the conference pursuit of Miami. At the time for what ever reason that was one of Miami request of teams to be pursued.

The ACC has enough highly credible academics schools where they can take on schools like Louisville and others. You can not build a conference with every smart school out there. From the poll the best two options are Cincinnati and West Virginia, but if ever a Notre Dame decides to join they will have the biggest voice in who will be selected as the 16th member.

West Virginia has ties to every school, and fits within the footprint and is known more so as a football first school. Cincinnati would be a good choice giving Louisville an old running mate just up the road, but with the way the ACC schedules the Cards May only see them once in a blue moon. Louisville closes ACC member is VT and we have been in the conference now 5-6 years and this is the first year we are playing them.

Back to topic at hand. West Virginia gives you name recognition on a national scale compared to Cincinnati not so much. You want to sell tickets and build ratings for you network. Just look at this way. What makes you set your DVR so you don’t miss a snap.

West Virginia vs Clemson OR Cincinnati vs Clemson???
Cincinnati vs Florida State OR West Virginia vs Florida State???
West Virginia vs Miami OR Cincinnati vs Miami???
Cincinnati vs Virginia Tech OR West Virginia vs Virginia Tech???
West Virginia vs Pittsburgh OR Cincinnati vs Pittsburgh???
Cincinnati vs Louisville OR West Virginia vs Louisville???

So as you can see West Virginia is the best choice, and who cares about academics when you are comparing SOS’s ranking’s rating’s and so forth. The ACC has enough schools to burden any issues they think these schools will cause to their academic recognition on a national scale, but if they think a academic school such as UConn is the answer then don’t ever question why the ACC will never get a second school in the playoffs vs football first conferences like the SEC and the Big12.

I recognize and acknowledge WVU’s brand strength, and you are right those games would be compelling, but I would not be so quick to dismiss tv ratings for Cincinnati vs the schools you listed. There is plenty of past instances of high TV rankings for UC/Louisville, UC/Pitt, UC/VT and from just a few years ago UC/Miami.

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

At the time of the raid, these were the # of wins in the preceding five seasons for the top BE schools:

55 Miami
48 Virginia Tech
40 Boston College
36 Pitt
33 Syracuse
31 West Virginia

Clearly, Miami was the #1 target, and if adding BC was the price the ACC had to pay to get Miami they were willing to pay for it. At the time, markets were a bigger factor in the economic decision than they are today, and Virginia Tech didn't offer the ACC anything it didn't already have.

(09-25-2020 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 08:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still never got BC to the ACC. As dumb as WVU in the Big 12 geographically. Was BC really the next best school after ND? That stupid 12 team minimum forced that. It was the beginning of the end, and it still bothers me to this day, more so than the recent reshuffle with A&M and Nebraska.

At the time of the raid, these were the # of wins in the preceding five seasons for the top BE schools:

55 Miami
48 Virginia Tech
40 Boston College
36 Pitt
33 Syracuse
31 West Virginia

Clearly, Miami was the #1 target, and if adding BC was the price the ACC had to pay to get Miami they were willing to pay for it. At the time, markets were a bigger factor in the economic decision than they are today, and Virginia Tech didn't offer the ACC anything it didn't already have.

Raid?

Miami wanted to be in the ACC when FSU was invited. Pure and simple. VT always wanted back with the ACC. Pure and simple. Discussion between Miami and the ACC had been going on since FSU joined. When the Big East cobble together a football side, they knew they were doing it with schools who would rather be elsewhere.

West Virginia's academic mission is not compatible with the schools who have competitive, rigorous admission standards. MD and UVa and Duke, and WF, and GT would NEVER support their admission.

The ACC back then especially, was a club. A social club. No one wants to make regular trips to Morgantown. Between Syracuse and Boston it's Boston hands down.

These issues matter. The opinions and preferences of certain alumni matter. The interlocking business interests of the ptb matter.

From a social standpoint the ACC of 2003, Syracuse was the big cultural outlier as compared to BC. And yes Miami liked them better as well. But Carolina and Duke worked in tandem with the ptb in Virginia to put the shiv to Syracuse because Carolina and Duke preferred VT over Syracuse for many, many reasons.

West Virginia has not shot at ACC membership unless and until the ACC is seeking an 18th school and even then it is a longshot.

TCU would likely be picked first out of that group. (No school has a reason to oppose TCU and they are in Texas)
Cincy would likely be picked 2nd. (No school has a reason to oppose)
Navy would likely be picked 3rd and ND would have to agree to at least 6 ACC games a year instead of 5. (No school has existential opposition, some schools have below the surface ties, it's not ideal)
Houston 5th (Some will claim it's a community college - but it's not)
UCF 6th (Some will claim it too is a community college - lacks breeding - and Miami and FSU would have to say yes - they may not)
Tulane 7th (Any school with an understanding of the South, of the SEC, of the Southern Conference, and the State of Louisiana, will wonder how long it would be before Tulane again scaled back athletics and pulled the Duke football option that Duke used for many decades after 1962)

West Va, UConn and Temple - never as a 16th. Not without major defections from the conference is it is currently constructed.

(09-25-2020 11:25 AM)Statefan Wrote:  West Virginia's academic mission is not compatible with the schools who have competitive, rigorous admission standards. MD and UVa and Duke, and WF, and GT would NEVER support their admission.

The ACC back then especially, was a club. A social club. No one wants to make regular trips to Morgantown. Between Syracuse and Boston it's Boston hands down.

These issues matter. The opinions and preferences of certain alumni matter. The interlocking business interests of the ptb matter.

Having grown up in ACC territory it's more simple than academics, there's just a big mountain stigma/prejudice against WVU in the ACC. The plains and coastal elites who run the ACC in the Carolinas and Virginia view the mountains as backward hick areas, that goes back to colonial times.

That works against any schools in mountain areas, like App State. It worked against VT for a long while, really took the VA governor to force them in, as they are in the foothills of the mountains.

ACC's best addition was VT, with streaming and eyeballs now more important the market the ACC really should look like this:
Temple
Pitt
West Virginia
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
NC State
North Carolina
Duke
ECU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

*Notre Dame
Once Notre Dame is ready to go all in add Navy and you are solid in every state from PA down to Florida.
Temple is a basketball school that has proven they can get fans in the stadium when playing regional P5 schools. Temple also gives you Philadelphia and locks down PA as a ACC/Big Ten state. Everyone plays in large football stadiums except for Wake/Duke (small private schools) and gives you great atmospheres. Plus tons of rivalries.
West Virginia should be playing VT, UVA, Pitt, and Temple every year.
ECU should be playing NCSU, UNC, Duke, and Wake every year
Thanksgiving Games:
Pitt vs. West Virginia
Virginia vs. Virginia Tech
UNC vs. Duke
NC State vs. ECU
Wake Forest vs. App State^
Clemson vs. South Carolina^
Georgia Tech vs. Georgia^
Florida State vs. Florida^
Miami vs. Temple