I can give you plenty of reasons why your new A League isn't the best. Clemson is a better choice than Boston College.

Exposure. First of all Clemson has a much bigger fan base. By eliminating Clemson you eliminate those extra fans. Proof, 2001 nationally ranked attendance numbers
Football
Clemson 15th
BC 49th

M. Basketball
Clemson 59
BC 96

W. Basketball
Clemson 30
BC 38

Baseball
Clemson 18
BC Not ranked (not in top 50)

Soccer
Clemson 7
BC Not ranked

Boston College might have one of the biggest regions to itself but nobody in that region cares about college sports or Boston College. But by ousting Clemson you lose some of the best exposure the ACC has. South Carolina is a two school state. You either pull for Clemson (ACC) or South Carolina (SEC), there are no other schools. If the ACC gets rid of Clemson you get rid of the exposure of an entire state, Tiger fans and Gamecock fans (they keep up with the ACC hoping the Tigers lose and pull for the other ACC teams to beat the tigers.)

Recruiting
Clemson has out recruited BC in Football and Baseball for who knows how long. Basketball i don't know about. I do know that Clemson generally gets a very good recruiting class, we just don't produce on the court. More numbers, teams nationally ranked for their recruiting in Fooball
2002
Clemson 22
BC Not Ranked

2001
Clemson 10
BC Not Ranked

TV/Revenue
Clemson has more Football and Baseball games televised. Again i don't know about Basketball, but i do know that Clemson had HALF of their games televised. (Not major networks, but still televised).

Overall Sports
2001-2002 Sears Directors Cup Standings
Clemson 26th
BC 73rd
Boston College was not even close to being even near any of the other current or proposed A League members.

Rivalries
Rivalries do not just pop up out of nowhere, they take time. Clemson-GT is a good example. It is also a good example of a rivalry that would end with the A League. You've mentioned the FSU-Miami as an example of how rivalries would work in the new A League. Guess what, this rivalry already works without the new A League. Add in the UNC-NCState rivalry that would be lost the A League brings in ZERO NEW RIVALRIES. Boston College brings no new rivalries, while keeping Clemson keeps at least one.

Clemson is a better choice than BC. NCState is a better choice than BC. Wake Forest is a better choice than BC.

YOU'RE A MORON

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BlueDevil:
still haven't heard one valid reason why Syracuse, BC, Miami, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, and FSU, wouldn't want to do this and make millions extra.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because they'd lose millions in travel costs, you financial lamebrain. One of the downsides that the ACC schools saw in bringing in FSU was the amount of money in travel costs to reach Tallahassee for the schools at the northern end of the conference. I'm talking about Maryland & Virginia here, not the hallowed Tobacco Road schools. If Syracuse and/or BC were added at the north & Miami at the south, you are talking astronomically high travel costs for athletes and staff to travel to events at these schools.

Not to mention how much MORE time the STUDENT-athletes would spend outside of the classroom, on the road, especially for the non-revenue sports who travel by van or bus.

I realize that C-USA is spread out as well, but IIRC, not all of the schools play each other every year in every sport, thus cutting down on some of the travel costs & time to more distant schools to an every other year basis. And with airfare costs on the rise since 9/11, it will become much more difficult for schools to negotiate reasonable rates for charter flights.

In conclusion, as another poster inferred, it comes down to a basic tenet, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The ACC & Big East conferences seem quite happy with things as they are. Therefore, your hair-brained scheme just ain't gonna happen...not in our lifetime.

We've already been over this on this very thread, multiple times, Clemson has been addresed repeatedly and you brought up absolutely nothing new, why didn't you just repost your previous messages or better yet read the responses? Since you obviously missed it before:

The Atlantic League is perfect as planned, with BC, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, and FSU, covering the entire east, and dominating the country with the top programs in basketball, football, soccer, baseball, hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, etc. It would have the best rivalries in the country in all sports including UNC-Duke-UMD, FSU-Miami, PSU-FSU, PSU-UMD-UVA-UNC-GT-FSU, Miami-Syracuse-BC-Duke, etc., the best teams and matchups and most TV exposure which leads to the most revenue by far.

Clemson, like NCSU and Wake, is mediocre to horrendous in everything, it has the worst academics in ACC, and 15-20+ NCAA violations every year. Wake is small and weak and always will be, it has the worst alltime win percentage in div.IA football, dead last of 114 schools, that says it all about their competitiveness in bigtime sports along with their 1 final four from 40 years ago, Winston-Salem doesn't even care much less anyone else not even Wake alums. It adds nothing and only takes away so other ACC schools would be better off dropping Wake even if other better schools weren't added.

Basketball and football revenue is about equal in the ACC and most other conferences.

If anything, the Atlantic League might be too good in football and not strong enough in basketball, although it would definitely be the best in the country by far in both as well as everything else. Plus there is such a thing as being too tough in football and that can knock teams out of national title contention, like in the Big 12. Top competition in basketball on the other hand is great preparation for NCAA tourney.

In the Atlantic League, perennial top 25 football programs include superpowers Miami, FSU, and Penn State, plus Friedgen is a genius that should keep UMD in the top 25, Syracuse has 15 straight winning seasons in football and counting, UVA is recruiting top 10 talent and has potential to become a power program since Groh is an alum and can recruit as well as Mack Brown did at UNC, UNC alum Bunting was 38-14-2 as div.III coach of the year before taking over heels so his success is no fluke, GT has 4 national titles in football and pays to hire top coaches so will always be a power, BC's coach uses the same conservative but effective style that Welsh used to take UVA to over a dozen straight 7 win seasons so they should be consistently good, Duke has 3rd best tradition in ACC according to cfrc.com and with its awesome academics has the same great potential as Northwestern and Stanford which have combined to win 4 conference titles in just the last 8 years or so and even contended for national titles.

In basketball, Duke and UNC are traditional superpowers, UMD and Syracuse should be top 25 most years and contend for national titles, and UVA, Miami, BC, Penn State, GT, and FSU all have potential. Womens basketball, Duke, UNC, Penn State, BC, UVA, etc., have been good to great recently and the rest have potential.

Conference revenue comes from TV contracts, attendance affects school revenue but not conference revenue, and Clemson, NCSU, and Wake have little to no TV draw, nationally or otherwise. Recruits pick schools for a combination of academics, athletics, location, campus, students, diversity, etc. Over the long term, Duke, UNC, and UVA, are the best ACC schools and overall athletic programs according to US News, Sears Cup, etc., they even have the best campuses, and get the best recruits. Basketball, Duke, UNC, UMD, get the best recruits, in football, FSU, UVA, UNC, get the best, everyone else is mediocre to terrible. GT has a football national title and bball final four in 90s and Atlanta location, UMD has best bball and fball teams in ACC last year plus ACC's 2 biggest TV markets, FSU is best football and party school in nation, UNC has great basketball and overall sports, UVA has great academics and overall sports and fball recruiting, Duke has best basketball and academics and great overall sports, etc.

Clemson may be better than NCSU and Wake in sports but that's not saying much, and it's not a national power in football, basketball, or overall sports, and worst in ACC in academics, diversity, location, etc., and has 15 NCAA violations every year. BC has much better academics and basketball, football is on the rise and finished top 25 unlike Clemson, plus they won hockey national title going to 4 straight final fours, the real benefit of BC is it's the only school in the nation with a whole huge region New England all to itself and that means great recruiting territory and much more TV coverage and revenue for all Atlantic League schools. That's a huge issue, Boston is 6th largest TV market in US and if BC stayed in Big East with Providence, UConn, etc., all of New England could be lost to the A League, and fans of Duke, Syracuse, UNC, UVA, PSU, etc., living there would be unable to watch the games, clearly unacceptable and a huge and unnecessary loss of revenue and exposure.

FSU-Miami becoming a conference rivalry more than makes up for UNC-NCSU becoming OOC, obviously Syracuse, BC, Miami already have rivalries. Penn State has played Syracuse, BC, UMD, UVA, and every other A League schools except Duke several times, in fact it has played more games against just those first 3 than the whole Big 10 combined. GT can play whoever it wants.

Again, A League is perfect as planned, there's a symmetry to it, it's very balanced between north and south, in terms of sports and academics and geography, etc., obviously it's not in every small state like DE, SC, RI, etc., but it includes all the major regions and markets of the east and the best div.IA schools and athletic programs, would be the best academically, dominate the nation in every major US sport, exposure, revenue, and everything else.

I think we have given this toolbox exactly what he wanted, attention. You remember the kids in school that would pick a fight, only to get their ass kicked because negative attention was better than no attention at all? Let's leave this scumbag to wallow in the misery of his unemployment and habitation in his parents' basement. If we keep responding, he will keep posting until the server crashes.

The only advice I can give to Blue Balls is, don't ever end up at a Wake game or on our campus spouting your ignorance. I would stay away from State and Clemson, too. They don't take real kindly to twinkletoed types like yourself.

Let's stick to discussing sports, Weak fart fans calling others twinkletoed is pathetic, do they expect as little of themselves as they do from their school or teams? No Wake fan has ever wanted expansion because they're scared of competition, they can't even compete as it is, that's why this proposal is great for NCSU, Wake, and Clemson, they would all win much more in a new Big East.

Obviously since conferences all over the country expand into new markets to bring in more TV revenue while increasing travel costs, the benefits and profits vastly outweigh any additional expenses. That's the reason ACC added FSU, and only considered faraway schools like Syracuse, BC, and Miami for expansion, and ruled out closeby schools like VT, ECU, etc. The 2 best conferences in Sears Cup rankings of overall sports are PAC 10, where every school is several hundred miles from at least 8 of the other 9 members, and SEC where every school is more than 100 miles from nearest member, so obviously they have no problems with travel even to minor airports, and excel in the nonrevenue sports. Atlantic League would save travel costs and time by scheduling 2 game road trips during regular season, to Syracuse and BC, UMD and UVA, Duke and UNC, FSU and Miami, etc., playing Thu and Sat or Fri and Sun, this would also prepare teams for NCAA tourney schedules. Plus schools like Duke and UNC would still play NCSU, Wake, and maybe even Clemson, OOC in many or all sports, so what would have been faraway nonconference foes would be replaced by nearby games. So it all works out in the end to make little difference in travel time or costs. A League could even get an official airline sponsorship to get free rides or discounts, etc., or buy private jets with the tens of millions in extra revenue per school.

ACC is 2nd of 2 in southeast even in basketball and just a joke in football, Big East is dead last in both sports, and those are the 2 youngest, weakest, and least stable BCS leagues, with unfair tourney locations, ref bias, tremendous gaps between haves and have nots, worse than communist distribution agreement, archaic and reactionary voting system, uneven or far flung geographical distribution, and have every problem a league could have. Atlantic League would be best in the nation in every way and much improved in everything with no downsides, my proposal may seem ahead of its time to slow moving southerners, but that just means it's a quantum leap forward and the A League should last for centuries as the best, just like the Ivy League.

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: BlueDevil ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BlueDevil:
BC has much better academics and basketball, football is on the rise and finished top 25 unlike Clemson, plus they won hockey national title going to 4 straight final fours.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought only football and basketball mattered to you. Make up your freaking mind. If you're going to count college hockey, then you can't ignore Wake's 3 recent baseball titles, or State usual success in women's basketball (including a recent sweet 16 and final four).

You also can't seem to make up your mind as to whether tradition or potential matters more. What's that losing streak up to, 26 or 27 games? And no good signs of it ending this year?

The Wolfpack has been to two bowl games in two years under Chuck Amato, has beaten FSU two times in the last four years, was the first ACC team to win in Tallahassee, is a preseason top 25 pick and a 2nd place ACC pick. Even if you don't put much credence into preseason rankings you have to agree that there's a lot more potential there than BC. Not to mention that Syracuse has not beaten NCSU in 6 tries.

You continue to contradict yourself by changing your opinion of what is important from post to post <img border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" title="" src="graemlins/banghead.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" title="" src="graemlins/banghead.gif" />

If you're so sure your idea would work, write to John Swofford.

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Upper Deck Chevy ]</small>

I'll give you more reasons not to change from a strictly UNC standpoint.

As I mentioned before, UNC is one of the few athletic programs in the country that operates in the black. It's very rare for athletic programs to do this -- even schools that bring in huge revenues from football TV deals and ticket sales lose it back on expenditures for travel and funding non-revenue sports.

As Lucy already mentioned, travel is a huge cost that's a tough enough burden on the revenue sports, but even more of a burden on non-revenue sports.

The beauty of the ACC -- as you so adamently pointed out before -- is that it covers such a small area on the Atlantic Coast. All schools are relatively close to each other, so travel costs are minimal. Now, imagine any team trying to travel to, say, Miami. Even Talahassee is a good distance from Miami. Now, imagine a team like Syracuse trying to travel there. We're not just talking about football and basketball here -- we're talking about ALL sports. Those expenditures add up.

Now think of the ACC. Four of the schools are in North Carolina, less than a couple of hours from each other. Do you know how much money that saves?

Back to UNC -- we are one of the lucky few to make money each year. This is due, in part, to the relatively low operating costs compared to a lot of NCAA athletic programs. It's also due to leading the nation in merchandising sales. We are already well-known around the country. Playing Boston College every year -- or some other school -- is not going to increase exposure for us.

Next....

-JD

What is important is this, doubling or tripling exposure and revenue, being the best in the nation in every way instead of 2nd of 2 in southeast, nobody disputes that A League would be best in the nation and better than ACC.

Fact is, NCSU excels at nothing and is mediocre to horrendous in everything, it's a much worse candidate than even Clemson, its location alone disqualifies it. Basketball has been terrible since mid 80s changes which added shot clock, 3 pointers, and 64 team field, football hasn't changed in several decades and NCSU has 2nd worst tradition in NC behind Wake which has worst alltime win percentage in the country, overall sports is bad, academics bottom of ACC, no TV draw, even the NC locals don't care. NCSU is overshadowed in every way by national powers Duke and UNC that share basically the same city, it's crazy that any socalled major conference would have 3 members, 1/3 of the whole league, in one small metropolitan area, let alone 4 within an hour drive of each other. Even if NCSU was as good as Syracuse, BC, Miami, and Penn State, and it isn't even close, it would have to move to a new big TV market and dominate it in order to stay in Atlantic League if the other schools actually want to make or keep any money. Great thing about NCSU, Wake, and Clemson, moving to Big East, to join VT, WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, UConn, and probably Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, is TV region would stretch from south to midwest to northeast and have several good football and basketball programs, BCS bid, fball title game, etc., while being much more competitive and each school still being able to play old rivals, all that makes it better for fans, schools, conferences, etc.

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: BlueDevil ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Wake which has worst alltime win percentage in the country </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Link, please.

-JD

Whether or not UNC barely breaks even or not, obviously they would prefer to make tens of millions per year, and since most schools lose money on sports they need those extra millions, especially with title IX and increasing costs of facilities and coaches, etc. I already pointed out that extra revenue from TV and extra BCS bowls and NCAA games, obviously more than make up for potential increased travel costs with millions to spare, and since the former ACC schools would still play each other OOC replacing what would have been faraway OOC opponents, travel costs may not even increase at all. Of course UNC and Duke and the rest would get more exposure and the schools and alumni want or need that exposure, why? Because many alumni and fans move to heavily populated northeast NYC, Philly, Boston, etc., and want to be able to see their schools play, that plus all the new Syracuse, Miami, BC, PSU, fans all over the coast and nation, would lead to lots more exposure and revenue and viewing pleasure for millions. All that exposure and TV and newspaper coverage would lead to more applicants per school, increased selectivity, better academic reputations and quality, etc., as well as better sports and more money.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I already pointed out that extra revenue from TV and extra BCS bowls and NCAA games, obviously more than make up for potential increased travel costs with millions to spare </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did you point this out? With facts, I mean.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">since the former ACC schools would still play each other OOC replacing what would have been faraway OOC opponents, travel costs may not even increase at all </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dude, you do not get it! We cannot be in one conference and pretend to be in another at the same time. This is what you are proposing by saying that we could still play teams from our old conference. It is virtually impossible to still play a team (much less, any more than one) in all sports when they aren't in your conference. This is especially true in sports where not a lot of games/matches/meets are played.

-JD

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BlueDevil:
I already pointed out that extra revenue from TV and extra BCS bowls and NCAA games, obviously more than make up for potential increased travel costs with millions to spare, and since the former ACC schools would still play each other OOC replacing what would have been faraway OOC opponents, travel costs may not even increase at all. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are living in an economic dreamworld or vacuum, I can't quite decide which one. There is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any extra revenue from TV to spread amongst the member schools. I'm betting that some of the extra bowl games will go bankrupt because fans will not be able to afford to attend these games due to layoff from their jobs. Travel costs will only be going up...and you have to be nuts to think that any schools are going to be purchasing their own jets when even Fortune 100 companies are selling theirs because they are not a financial profit-making center in today's business world. The airlines are losing money hand over fist and will not be looking to give collegiate conferences deep discounts for athletic travel...they would only continue to lose money.

Now if you will provide concrete proof (this means facts & figures from real sources, not the BlueDevil mind) rather than cutting & pasting your same tired paragraphs over & over, maybe some of us might listen. If not, then this thread may have reached the end of its usefulness.

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Lucy ]</small>

ESPN sportscenter said Kansas State recently moved out of last place meaning Wake football had the worst alltime winning percentage in the country, obviously these numbers change every year and new div.IA teams are added, but Wake fans acknowledge their team recently became dead last. Dude, don't you realize that what you say is impossible has been happening with UVA, GT, and FSU every year, not to mentions tons of other schools like UK, Louisville, etc., hell FSU plays both Miami and UF OOC every year, in football and everything else!

History of all conferences, and future plans of all conferences, to expand into new markets or realign with strong schools in big markets, shows that expansion even when it isn't accompanied by cutting fat by dropping weak schools that take unearned shares of the pie, leads to increased net revenue after travel costs, happened with Penn State and Big 10, FSU and ACC, Big 12, PAC 10, etc., etc. There have been several articles about how ACC revenue skyrocketed when FSU was added. Of course Wake fans realize their school adds nothing with mediocre to bad football, basketball, and TV markets, so dropping Wake while adding more schools like FSU or Penn State would lead to even more money, it's not rocket science.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BlueDevil:
ESPN sportscenter said Kansas State recently moved out of last place meaning Wake football had the worst alltime winning percentage in the country, obviously these numbers change every year and new div.IA teams are added, but Wake fans acknowledge their team recently became dead last. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true. All it takes is a little research to prove you are wrong...and if you'd do a little yourself, you might make yourself look a little more credible.

When you go to the <a href="http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football_records_book/2001/005-108.pdf" target="_blank">NCAA record book online</a>, you find that Wake Forest does NOT have the all-time worst winning percentage in Div. I football. And don't give me the "add new schools" answer. You cannot dispute the NCAA's own recordkeepers (as much as your buddies at ESPN might try). KENT STATE holds that honor now, with an all-time won-loss record of 268-424 (percentage of .392).

It's amazing how the internet turned spineless candyasses into tough guys all of a sudden. If you had any guts, you wouldn't hide behind the anonymity of a computer screen to spread your ideas. At least Gene Slapajackoff went public with his idiocy. Sure, he peeks out the window at 3 AM now and gets nervous when he starts his car, but he made his point.

Kent must have overtaken Wake recently to barely become worst at .392, Wake is .395, 3rd worst is UTEP at .417, so Wake is like 116th of 117 div.IA schools in alltime win percentage, congratulations, but that's the same thing, hopeless. By the way, ACC made less than $5 million in 1981 and $53 million in 1997 largely because of FSU along with Duke, UNC, and UMD which has both of ACC's 2 biggest TV markets.

<a href="http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:8s_3D6oOfDEC:archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/nao/sports/030997/sports01_3685.html+ACC+revenue+Florida+State&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:8s_3D6oOfDEC:archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/nao/sports/030997/sports01_3685.html+ACC+revenue+Florida+State&hl=en&ie=UTF-8</a>

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: BlueDevil ]</small>

What is important is this, doubling or tripling exposure and revenue, being the best in the nation in every way instead of 2nd of 2 in southeast.

Does anyone dispute that A League would be best in the nation and better than ACC in every way, football, basketball, overall sports, rivalries, fun, academics, prestige, fan base, recruiting territory, exposure, revenue, etc.?

<small>[ July 18, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: BlueDevil ]</small>

Notice how the paragraphs get shorter and shorter as he loses large chunks of his mantra. <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laughing.gif" />

-JD

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BlueDevil:
Does anyone dispute that A League would be best in the nation and better than ACC in every way, football, basketball, overall sports, rivalries, fun, academics, prestige, fan base, recruiting territory, exposure, revenue, etc.?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" alt="[Wavy Guy]" title="" src="graemlins/wave.gif" />

-JD

Finally...BlueDevil begins to give something other than his opinion, albeit a 5 year old article, but still, I do find this change encouraging.

Carry on...but if there is a return to the cut-and-paste method of posting, then I may have to bring out the hardware: