I'm not talking about the nation, but just the ACC/Big East war going on. Were Syracuse and Pitt poached to kill the Big East's threat to the ACC as the best football conference on the eastern seaboard? Obviously the ACC sees football as a means to survive, but I think this is more about basketball than football.
Who in New York cares about Syracuse football? Probably a few people, but are they lining up to get tickets to the ACC conference championship game at Yankee Stadium? No...but they are talking about the ACC tournament at MSG. Does Boston get excited for BC football? I'm guessing basketball is a bigger draw there if it's not the Patriots. In Philly and Pittsburgh, I really get the impression that college football isn't that important. In DC, it may be a talking point for politicians, but they're more interested in their home states than they are Maryland's or Virginia's games.
I'm starting to believe that the ACC was more upset that they were clearly no longer the basketball superpower. 11 bids from the Big East? I have to imagine that rankled the ACC quite a bit. No one cares about their football, no one cared about ours, but both leagues care mightily about basketball. So the best thing to do is take two of the best basketball programs. Sure, it was under the guise of football, but does anyone really think Syracuse and Pitt football do anything for the ACC?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a huge following for college football on the East Coast. I have only visited and haven't lived out there. But I really think that at least this aspect of the conference wars was about basketball.
Boston is a pro city. Syracuse, is down. In there hay day, the Carrier Dome was a very tough place to play. The east coast is solid, but Boston & NYC is pro cities.
The ACC was blocking a move from the BigTen or SEC to get any Big East schools.
BrewCity - Having called Boston home since 92' I can tell you that BC sports really have fallen off the radar locally since BC joined the ACC. There are no rivals of any interest anymore. At least BC football is an opportunity to see Div 1 football with an occasional decent opponent. BC basketball on the other hand is the biggest non-event in the Boston area. Bringing Pitt & Syracuse into their schedule is going to bring a lot more interest to the program in the area. The BC coach must be pumped.
I couldn't immediately find it, but there was a recent article on one of the sports sites (ESPN, SI, cbssports) talking about how far ACC basketball had fallen off, that there were two good schools and then nothing. It is an interesting conjecture.
I dont think its about football or basketball; it's more about perception. The ACC now owns the entire eastern seaboard from Miami to Boston. BC was stuck on an island and now they have two old rivalries that they hadnt had since they left the BE. BC will be far more relevant now, IMO.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:00:31 PM
I couldn't immediately find it, but there was a recent article on one of the sports sites (ESPN, SI, cbssports) talking about how far ACC basketball had fallen off, that there were two good schools and then nothing. It is an interesting conjecture.
ESPN interviewed Seth Greenburg and he said his program was the fourth best bball team in the ACC over the past few years. That shocked me but they arent exactly cutting down NIT nets. But Maryland might be scary good in the coming years now that Gary Williams is gone.
WOW! I'm usually not one to even entertain conspiracy theories...but this has some pretty good points, Brew.
If it were about basketball they would have taken UConn. If they really wanted to kill BE basketball they would have taken bball members like Georgetown and Nova.
If Cuse or even Rutgers were competitive in football there would be a following. People always get interested in a winner. Neither team including Pitt are winning, therfore little interest in college football here on the east coast. When you have the Giants, Jets, Eagles, Yankees, Phillies, Mets, Knicks, Nets, Sixers, Devils, Rangers, Flyers and Islanders all within a 50 mile radius of where I live here in Princeton, New Jersey; college sports is secondary. However, When St. John's and Seton Hall were competitive in the late 80's college basketball had a big following here though they still had to compete with all the pro sports in the area. I do think you are right. It has more to do with basketball than football regarding the Big East and the ACC. When was the last ACC school to win the football national popularity contest. Oops! I mean BCS championship.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
If it were about basketball they would have taken UConn. If they really wanted to kill BE basketball they would have taken bball members like Georgetown and Nova.
There is more than one person across the country that has had this theory, and It was mine from the word go. it IS about basketball for the ACC. Don't let them tell you it was about anything else. They were sick and tired of hearing about how the Big East was the best basketball conference ever assembled. A title that once belonged to the ACC. The basketball powers that be, got together and knew they needed to do something. What better way to do that than take two of the top teams in the best basketball conference in the land??
If this were about football, they wouldn't have taken Pitt and Syracuse. Not a chance. It WAS and IS about basketball. The only way they could get back that title was to kill the Big East, and they knew it.
Taking two crappy football programs and claiming it is about stability for the conference from a football standpoint. (Other than the UNC sweet 16 game, oops) The Big East was stealing the thunder, stealing the tourney bids, and the ACC was struggling to get a 4th team in. For years. So the ACC did it for basketball, but left themselves plausible deniability. I can see that.
This had everything to do with ACC/Big 12/Big East all being on shaky ground. If the SEC/Big 10/Pac 10 came calling, programs would have cut their wrists off to be invited to those conferences. A&M decided it was sick of Texas and the ground got a bit more shaky. Pitt and Syracuse couldn't handle it anymore and the ACC pounced and subsequently pushed its way onto some more stable ground.
So I don't think it was some great conspiracy theory as the ACC did what it needed to do. It couldn't afford to wait and possibly loss Virginia Tech or other programs to the SEC. They went out and got stronger. Kudos to them and shame on us.
What, exactly, did MU do wrong in all of this?
Quote from: mufanatic on September 21, 2011, 03:39:00 PM
So I don't think it was some great conspiracy theory as the ACC did what it needed to do. It couldn't afford to wait and possibly loss Virginia Tech or other programs to the SEC. They went out and got stronger. Kudos to them and shame on us.
1. I don't think they got stronger. Spliting the pot two extra ways isn't going to help them.
2. Shame on us? What did MU do?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 03:43:23 PM
1. I don't think they got stronger. Spliting the pot two extra ways isn't going to help them.
2. Shame on us? What did MU do?
WE DIDN'T START A MONEY PIT OF A FOOTBALL PROGRAM!
Quote from: Markaz3 on September 21, 2011, 02:57:55 PM
BrewCity - Having called Boston home since 92' I can tell you that BC sports really have fallen off the radar locally since BC joined the ACC. There are no rivals of any interest anymore. At least BC football is an opportunity to see Div 1 football with an occasional decent opponent. BC basketball on the other hand is the biggest non-event in the Boston area. Bringing Pitt & Syracuse into their schedule is going to bring a lot more interest to the program in the area. The BC coach must be pumped.
BC football is a complete joke, they got worked by DUKE last week. And BC basketball, the only game anyone gets excited about around here is the BC-Duke or BC-Carolina games. The hockey games with BU are way more important. The move to the ACC backfired horribly for them, but allowed us to get into the BE... thanks BC.
(Ed. note--Their students are still awesomely self-important as ever though.)
I think the ACC will eventually take UCONN also. They are just waiting to see if they can reel in ND first. Why take UCONN and Rutgers now if you could wait and get ND and Uconn. We'll know it's about basketball if they take Georgetown and Villanova, putting the final nail in the coffin of the Big East.
The ACC's hypocrisy would be laid bare to the world if they took G-town or Nova after swearing it was all about football. I can't see it. UConn at least has a rudimentary D1 football team so that they can preserve the illusion.
I do think the ACC thought they were going to lose some of their teams. So they struck when the iron was hot. It will be interesting to see how Pitt does in the ACC. Pitt is a physical team that is going to a finesse league. Pitt probably belong in the Big 10 more than they do in the ACC. Even Syracuse, with their zone defense, may find success not as easy. Both of those schools generally under perform in NCAA tournament.
Are we ever gonna start talkin about bball again.
I bet Basketball might have played apart, but this was preemptive strike because the ACC was terrified the SEC was going to take Florida St. or Va Tech to make their conference 14 or 16 teams. If you lose one or both of those schools to the SEC, the ACC's football takes a major blow. This way if they lose a few teams, they still have 12 to play a conference championship and their BCS status would remain a lock. Also, geographically, who would have been a better choice? No SEC team is going to move to the ACC. You could reach for a BIG 12 team, but they are more likely to go to the SEC if given a chance. Weakening the Big East in basketball might have been why they focused on Syracuse and Pitt, but football was still the catalyst.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:42:01 PM
What, exactly, did MU do wrong in all of this?
We dropped football 50 years ago. Bringing it back now won't do anything, but if we'd had it all along and if we were still competitive (big if), we might be in a better position.
Ok, quick show of hands of those who remember when MU dropped football. They made a business decision based on what they had in front of them. A lousy team, lousy attendance, lousy stadium. They lacked the funds back then to keep up with the changes they saw coming 50 years ago. I guess they should have had the foresight to pour money down the black hole so that we could be Vanderbilt (at best) in 2011
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_football/start
If the ACC wants to expand in the same time zone, who were better options than Pitt and Syracuse? I think both will get better in football since they will have way more exposure in the south. Pitt has a strong football history and a growing bball program. Syracuse still produces plenty of NFL players, has a national bball program and solidifies LAX. Plus, adding Pitt takes away any chance that the B1G gives into Joe Pa and gives them an eastern rival. I dont think the ACC (or BE) wanted the B1G on the eastern seaboard. Now, the ACC rules the roost. Bball was only one of many factors.
Quote from: muhs03 on September 21, 2011, 04:02:19 PM
If the ACC wants to expand in the same time zone, who were better options than Pitt and Syracuse? I think both will get better in football since they will have way more exposure in the south. Pitt has a strong football history and a growing bball program. Syracuse still produces plenty of NFL players, has a national bball program and solidifies LAX. Plus, adding Pitt takes away any chance that the B1G gives into Joe Pa and gives them an eastern rival. I dont think the ACC (or BE) wanted the B1G on the eastern seaboard. Now, the ACC rules the roost. Bball was only one of many factors.
What's Penn State's status with the Big 10? Could they be convinced to join a conference closer to home? Does the BTN bring in too much money for them to leave? Or is the Big 10 too stable to leave? Just curious if anyone has thoughts or insights.
ACC football has two of their best football schools facing major NCAA sanctions with the loss of multiple scholarships. FSU is down from their elite years. Clemson football is rising and VT is the king now--both small markets. ACC basketball is a two-team game. The ACC sees they are becoming more irrelevant, and that the SEC and B10 are economic powerhouses so they again struck at the weak.
The problem is they paniced and all involved didn't really think it through as the geography/econmics (despite what their story reads) don't quite make sense again...the only natural rivals are the Carolina teams, and BC has become a non-event. ND is their savior and end game, otherwise they are second tier still (especially with pending hoops coach retirements)--and ND isn't biting until their 2015 TV deal goes into negotiations to see what they can get on their own--and the ACC has no real chance that their freshly inked deal will be reopened without them.
More so, the way they acted caused other university presidents--like those at Cal and Stanford--to rethink the madness and pull the Pac offers off the table.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 21, 2011, 04:06:31 PM
What's Penn State's status with the Big 10? Could they be convinced to join a conference closer to home? Does the BTN bring in too much money for them to leave? Or is the Big 10 too stable to leave? Just curious if anyone has thoughts or insights.
Are you serious? There is a reason the B10 has no exit fees.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 04:09:39 PM
Are you serious? There is a reason the B10 has no exit fees.
I didn't know that the Big 10 doesn't have exit fees although I did wonder why no one mentioned any of those schools as possible targets. I guess I learned something new. And, as always, thanks for answering a question and for being a dick about it.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 21, 2011, 04:22:11 PM
I didn't know that the Big 10 doesn't have exit fees although I did wonder why no one mentioned any of those schools as possible targets. I guess I learned something new. And, as always, thanks for answering a question and for being a dick about it.
Haha! +1
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 21, 2011, 04:22:11 PM
I didn't know that the Big 10 doesn't have exit fees although I did wonder why no one mentioned any of those schools as possible targets. I guess I learned something new. And, as always, thanks for answering a question and for being a dick about it.
I honestly didn't know if you were being serious since the questions were so absurd.
Schools aren't going to leave a very rich, stable, conference for the BE to cut down on travel costs. That's why schools aren't going to leave the SEC or the Pac-12 either.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:42:01 PM
What, exactly, did MU do wrong in all of this?
I blame Crean.
Well played, sir.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:42:01 PM
What, exactly, did MU do wrong in all of this?
The answer is obvious. They did not change their name back to warriors.
Well played to you, too, sir. Or.....they should have put Chico's in charge of everything... (too soon?)
http://twitter.com/#!/BearcatLair/status/116901178402549760
BearcatLair BearcatLair.com
Source: ACC is jealous of Big East bball and they went after Pitt/Cuse in an attempt to kill Big East. Well known ACC coach biggest advocate
Pitt was never going to be in the B1G, that bridge was burned.
The ACC move was entirely about killing their major competition, the BE, by going after their strength, basketball. I think the ACC has to be pissed that the PAC-12 staunched the bleeding. I think their plan was to get UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, and eventually ND. If the dominoes had fallen, it would have made them the premier basketball conference and a solid football conference(but still 4th best). That was a package they could sell for a sweet tv deal especially with money being available that was previously tied up in the Big East TV contracts.
However, now they are still the 4th best football conference and depending on what the Big East does will be a good basketball conference but not a huge differentiation as it could have been. They still won't get the kind of tv money that B1G, SEC, and PAC-12 will get leaving them vulnerable.
I don't think the ACC is done, they are going to try something more, but I do think they are going to be considered villians along with OU and Texas when this is all said and done.
If the ACC can get ND, then they will invite UConn (or Rutgers) to go along. My guess is they are working hard on ND, for all sports but football. That would hurt the BE. ND would still have the east coast connections and the ACC gets to do more damage to the BE.
Quote from: GOO on September 22, 2011, 12:10:22 PM
If the ACC can get ND, then they will invite UConn (or Rutgers) to go along. My guess is they are working hard on ND, for all sports but football. That would hurt the BE. ND would still have the east coast connections and the ACC gets to do more damage to the BE.
Out of curiousity, doesn't ND use/need the Big East as part of the BCS step of bowl bids? They can take a bowl bid away from a BE team based on BCS standings, ranking, record, etc.? Ho wmany conferences want to freely give up a bid to ND under certain circumstances?
Quote from: GOO on September 22, 2011, 12:10:22 PM
If the ACC can get ND, then they will invite UConn (or Rutgers) to go along. My guess is they are working hard on ND, for all sports but football. That would hurt the BE. ND would still have the east coast connections and the ACC gets to do more damage to the BE.
I think the ACC only takes ND if they can get them for every sport. No matter how much ND football sucks it would still be the best program in the ACC with the most revenue generation. To bring ND in for everything but football would leave the ACC very vulnerable and unbalanced.
I believe ND can take a bowl bid away from any conference depending on how the bowls contracts are written. As far as a BCS bowl, ND gets a bid like every other non-AQ school, if they finish in the top 12 in the computers they get a spot.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 22, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
I think the ACC only takes ND if they can get them for every sport. No matter how much ND football sucks it would still be the best program in the ACC with the most revenue generation. To bring ND in for everything but football would leave the ACC very vulnerable and unbalanced.
I believe ND can take a bowl bid away from any conference depending on how the bowls contracts are written. As far as a BCS bowl, ND gets a bid like every other non-AQ school, if they finish in the top 12 in the computers they get a spot.
Wow! The football champion is chosen by computer.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:42:01 PM
What, exactly, did MU do wrong in all of this?
Us being the Big East and shame for not making the conference stronger and more stable. We didn't have buy-in from all 16 teams. We should have had a much higher exit fee.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 22, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
I think the ACC only takes ND if they can get them for every sport. No matter how much ND football sucks it would still be the best program in the ACC with the most revenue generation. To bring ND in for everything but football would leave the ACC very vulnerable and unbalanced.
I believe ND can take a bowl bid away from any conference depending on how the bowls contracts are written. As far as a BCS bowl, ND gets a bid like every other non-AQ school, if they finish in the top 12 in the computers they get a spot.
I don't believe they take a bid away, they are just guaranteed a place. #1 and #2 in the BCS will play in the Championship Game. The six BCS-conference champs are guaranteed positions. That is a maximum of 8 teams (if ND was #1 and a Boise State-type team was #2), but the BCS has 10 spots (NCG, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) so there would still be room for 2 at-large teams. They must be ranked in the top 12 and are at the discretion of the BCS.
Most years, #1 and #2 will come from BCS conferences, and the 4 other BCS-conference champs will fill 4 of the 8 spots in the BCS games. Then there is room for 4 at-large teams, which could include anyone ranked in the top-12. All that makes ND different from a TCU, BSU, or other non-BCS team is that if they are in the top-12, they are guaranteed one of those spots, whereas the BCS could pass over anyone else provided they were ranked 3rd or lower.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 03:43:23 PM
1. I don't think they got stronger. Spliting the pot two extra ways isn't going to help them.
2. Shame on us? What did MU do?
I think you are wrong, adding 2 teams helps the ACC. They could have easily lost a few members to the SEC if the SEC wanted to go to 16. They weaken the Big East. Their basketball conference becomes a lot better.
Us being the Big East and shame for not making the conference stronger and more stable. We didn't have buy-in from all 16 teams. We should have had a much higher exit fee.
Quote from: tower912 on September 21, 2011, 03:59:20 PM
I guess they should have had the foresight to pour money down the black hole so that we could be Vanderbilt (at best) in 2011
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_football/start
At least Vanderbilt doesn't have to worry about what conference they will be in tomorrow, or the next day, or the next........
I found the answer to my own question. Notre Dame is inline for Big East bowl bids. From the BCS site:
Notre Dame is eligible for all bowls in which the Big East has a commitment, as well as the BCS. It also serves as the backup for the Big 12 in the Pinstripe Bowl. In the event that the Big 12 is unable to supply a team for the game, Notre Dame could step in as the opponent of the BIG EAST's representative.
The fact that the BCS doesn't simply take 1-10 to fill the slots is a travesty and is akin to price fixing.