Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....Miami won the ACC Basketball Regular Season and Conference Title in 2012-2013...we will compete just fine in 2014-2015 in both...absolutely loaded in Basketball coming up this year.....

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

Moving to the ACC was a disaster for BC and a great move for VT. It's hard to know what caused the down turn in the Miami program, but I doubt that it was related to the change in conferences.

BC should be helped by the additions of Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame. Time will tell if they can ever get back to where they were in the Big East.
One of the things that the Big East experiment with 16 teams should have taught everyone is that once a program gets stuck in the bottom half of the league, it's very difficult to build up the momentum to climb back to being competitive.

West Virginia faces the same problem in the Big XII as BC has in the ACC. A program simply loses a lot of enthusiasm when it loses all of its traditional rivalries over night. TCU, on the other hand, is going through the transition from being in a less competitive conference to one that is big time. Again time will tell if they're up to the challenge. Although it's gotten less attention, Utah is going through the same kind of transition in the PAC-12.

If anything, it shows that a school's momentum is only as good as its fan base and traditions. Schools that have small fan bases and who have never generated buzz in their communities, will not do so simply because they go the ACC or any other P5 conference. If you can't create internal inertia on your own, or having a history of winning programs, your not going have this magically happen when joining a P5 conference.

ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

Good evaluation RED

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

I have a feeling that the ACC will turn into a conference with a handfull of average teams (UNC, Miami, VT, GT, UL etc) some bad teams ( WF, Syracuse, Pitt etc) with one or maybe two teams sitting atop of the pile (FSU and Clemson).

They will beat up on each other and always be looked at as the weakest of the so called P5.

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....Miami won the ACC Basketball Regular Season and Conference Title in 2012-2013...we will compete just fine in 2014-2015 in both...absolutely loaded in Basketball coming up this year.....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

I think he voted them a wash because they were mediocre of late in the B12 before stinking up the join in the PAC12. Basically they were unchanged. Colorado has not been good in football since they de-emphasized the program following the rape scandal back in the early 2000s.

I think the question that needs to be asked is what’s the definition of success and by who?

Would the fans rather their school rather be dominant or even just competitive year after year in a lesser regarded conference that pays each member institution say $2,000,000 per season, in a conference of dissimilar institutions academically and culturally? I believe most fans would be fine with this but the university presidents wouldn’t be happy.

Would the university presidents rather their school be a middle of the pack to lower half program in a conference that gets national recognition, is paying each member $20,000,000 in TV revenue and is made up of institutions who have a similar fit culturally and academically? I believe the university administration would be fine with this but the fans wouldn’t be as happy.

Case in point, are the Rutgers fans really looking forward to the move to the BIG? In the short term I highly doubt it, over the long term if they can have some success maybe. Is the Rutgers administration excited by the move to the BIG? I believe absolutely 100% yes.

(04-23-2014 09:14 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....Miami won the ACC Basketball Regular Season and Conference Title in 2012-2013...we will compete just fine in 2014-2015 in both...absolutely loaded in Basketball coming up this year.....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

Out of 120 plus schools how many actually play for the National Title when you only have 2 teams playing for the BCS Title...the only thing you can judge is how many Conference Titles you play for and they played for 5 ACC Titles and won 4 ACC Titles..also they finished 3rd in the BCS in 2008...that is a little better than decent...same timeframe FSU won 3 ACC Titles and the 2013 BCS Title...

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

I've gotta throw Colorado in the failure column.. What have they done since about 1990?

That's the whole point.

(04-23-2014 09:17 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  I think the question that needs to be asked is what’s the definition of success and by who?

Would the fans rather their school rather be dominant or even just competitive year after year in a lesser regarded conference that pays each member institution say $2,000,000 per season, in a conference of dissimilar institutions academically and culturally? I believe most fans would be fine with this but the university presidents wouldn’t be happy.

Would the university presidents rather their school be a middle of the pack to lower half program in a conference that gets national recognition, is paying each member $20,000,000 in TV revenue and is made up of institutions who have a similar fit culturally and academically? I believe the university administration would be fine with this but the fans wouldn’t be as happy.

Case in point, are the Rutgers fans really looking forward to the move to the BIG? In the short term I highly doubt it, over the long term if they can have some success maybe. Is the Rutgers administration excited by the move to the BIG? I believe absolutely 100% yes.

I would think that the University Administrators would be wise to take the alumni and fan point of view, I could careless if my school was bringing in $20 mil a year you know why, because I wont see a dime of that money and the last time I checked schools wasnt letting fans into games free, which I am pretty sure they could with that $20 mil pay day.

(04-23-2014 09:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  ACC:
BC - Failure
Miami - Failure
VT - wash
Syracuse - TBD
Pitt - TBD
L'Ville - TBD

Pac-12:
Utah - Failure
Colorado - wash

Big-10:
Nebraska - wash

Big 12:
WVU - Failure
TCU - Failure (No bowl + 0-19 in basketball, really?)

SEC:
Texas A&M - Success
Missouri - Success

In my opinion, the SEC is the only conference that has gotten every move right in realignment so far, and that's probably why they continue to be regarded as the #1 conference in the land.

I think it's a bit too early to tell with respect to the 2011-2014 round of expansions. Utah and TCU definitely moved up in competition and may take some years to net out (i.e. consistent bottom feeders or not). I don't think the same was true for WVU -- they could have had a downturn or crash if they stayed in the Big East/American because these were Stew's players and recruiting had fallen off. Holgorsen isn't the coach that either of his predecessors was. BC had some great years early on but things turned south for them when they hired Spaziani; likewise in hoops when they fired Skinner. Miami left the Big East as a NC contender; Coker couldn't maintain it. Would they have been in the NC race if they had stayed in the Big East (i.e. no raid happened)?

The ACC 2003 expansion, Pac 12 and Big 10 expansions have different metrics than the Big 12 and Big East/American changes; the latter two were for survival. The former enhanced TV contracts and attempted to get multiple BCS births for the ACC (which did happen once).

How would you rate it if you looked at it from the Conference's perspectives instead of the team's?

ACC 2003 -- wash; probably a better TV contract but didn't eliminate the Big East auto bid and only once gave them multiple BCS berths
Pac 12 -- incredibly successfull based on TV contract.
Big 10 -- too early to tell
ACC 2011 -- hard to tell but probably successful. I don't know if Syracuse and Pitt added that much value to the contract
Big 12 -- was for survival. Probably would have worked out better logistically if they did go to 12 with UL, WVU, TCU and Cincinnati
Big East 2003 -- incredibly successful. Created the best basketball conference ever while realigning for survival; somehow held on to the BCS bid.
Big East/American 2013 --again for survival; too early to tell and probably can't be judged until the next TV contract rolls around.
ACC adding UL and ND -- successful in terms of football; survival in terms of the TV contract. Basketball didn't really need the help that UL can give.

(04-23-2014 09:13 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  I have a feeling that the ACC will turn into a conference with a handfull of average teams (UNC, Miami, VT, GT, UL etc) some bad teams ( WF, Syracuse, Pitt etc) with one or maybe two teams sitting atop of the pile (FSU and Clemson).

They will beat up on each other and always be looked at as the weakest of the so called P5.

The ACC is what it has been since the early 90s.

the pac12 move did turn CU basketball into a nationally relevant team overnight. so that is one + for them.

as for cuse being a bad program???? They have won 3 bowl games in the past 4 years ==> all of which came against p5 teams

(04-23-2014 08:57 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  If anything, it shows that a school's momentum is only as good as its fan base and traditions. Schools that have small fan bases and who have never generated buzz in their communities, will not do so simply because they go the ACC or any other P5 conference. If you can't create internal inertia on your own, or having a history of winning programs, your not going have this magically happen when joining a P5 conference.

I think there is definitely some truth in that, but I also don't think there is any doubt that moving to a P5 league would generate significant buzz for your average G5 school. But the program would have to do something with it for that buzz to develop into a bigger, loyal fan base.

For most schools, the definition of success is not winning or only money from the conference TV deal. It is exposure and name recognition.

As Susan Herbst at UConn keeps saying, "Athletics is the front porch of the university." Athletics are what give your school national exposure and brand name recognition. Televised games help to serve as free advertising and marketing for a school. This can help to attract a higher performing student body that comes from more corners of the world. It can also help to attract better professors and faculty. In the end, this all leads to more money on an academic level due to more advanced research, etc.

So, if you are a large state school, you may not settle for just the exposure and money at the expense of winning. However, some state schools (like Colorado) just don't seem to care about winning. However, for a smaller private school like Boston College or Wake Forest, it is all about the exposure. Winning is secondary. A BC-Clemson football game or a Wake-UNC basketball game gets these smaller institutions eyeballs when they play a big State U on national television. Without the benefit of a power conference and the big name opponents that it offers, these smaller schools wouldn't even be in the national conversation. The fact that the ACC makes these schools relevant is success enough.

(04-23-2014 10:30 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  For most schools, the definition of success is not winning or only money from the conference TV deal. It is exposure and name recognition.

As Susan Herbst at UConn keeps saying, "Athletics is the front porch of the university." Athletics are what give your school national exposure and brand name recognition. Televised games help to serve as free advertising and marketing for a school. This can help to attract a higher performing student body that comes from more corners of the world. It can also help to attract better professors and faculty. In the end, this all leads to more money on an academic level due to more advanced research, etc.

So, if you are a large state school, you may not settle for just the exposure and money at the expense of winning. However, some state schools (like Colorado) just don't seem to care about winning. However, for a smaller private school like Boston College or Wake Forest, it is all about the exposure. Winning is secondary. A BC-Clemson football game or a Wake-UNC basketball game gets these smaller institutions eyeballs when they play a big State U on national television. Without the benefit of a power conference and the big name opponents that it offers, these smaller schools wouldn't even be in the national conversation. The fact that the ACC makes these schools relevant is success enough.

A semi-OT question:

I always thought that UConn would have been a perfect fit for the ACC, moreso than Louisville or Cincy who I thought would have made great partners for WVU in the Big 12.

What were the reasons UConn was passed over by the ACC?

(04-23-2014 09:14 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:31 AM)HPbull24 Wrote:  Just asking, not trying to cause an uproar or pissing contest. Miami and BC hasn't done anything, VT is always solid but their one and only NC appearance came in the Big East with Vick at the helm.

Those are just a few examples. Just a question to get a discussion started becasue I seen someone make the comment that WVU and TCU would rather have a losing record in the Big 12 than a winning one in their previous conference.

To me it is only a handfull of teams in those stacked conferences that will have a chance anyway so maybe those teams would be better off in a conference like the old Big East or WAC.

UL fans would you be ok with going 7-5 or 6-6 in your new conference, I mean everyone seems to think that money will make everything ok even subpar records.

You know Virginia Tech won that league or played in the ACC Title Game 5 Times since they joined the league and won the league the first year when they didn't have a Title Game....Miami won the ACC Basketball Regular Season and Conference Title in 2012-2013...we will compete just fine in 2014-2015 in both...absolutely loaded in Basketball coming up this year.....

nice job trying to sugar coat it, every major AAC/Big East team has had a huge falling off since joining. VT is doing decent for acc standards but aren't what they used to be, they were a national title contender in the Big east. even their good years in the acc, everyone has considered them overrated,

True, I am pretty sure ECU beat VT one of the years they won the ACC