Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
Author Message
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 07:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Here is the simple answer we should all agree on as ACC and BigXII fans. If both conferences can monetize the benefits of a relationship to the point that it creates stability for both conferences, then you do it. If you can't improve stability and make much money thru a tie up, then you don't.

Agree with this and it is this simple.
06-02-2013 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 09:00 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...

I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.

LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

Somebody must have missed the annual Clemson - South Carolina, Florida State - Florida, Georgia Tech - Georgia, and Louisville - Kentucky games. If The SEC goes to 9 games, they still play these games OOC. These are all in-state games

Now who does The Big 12 play from The SEC? Oklahoma State - Mississippi State, Texas Christian - Louisiana State, Texas - Ole Miss. Aside from TCU it looks like the rest of The Big 12 would rather play lower level SEC teams or CUSA and AAC teams.

Unfortunately The Big 12 looks to have responded to Missouri and A&M leaving by refusing to play them. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. The only teams that hurts are Big 12 teams. The SEC can schedule who they want and right now it looks like The SEC is scheduling ACC teams.
CJ

You forgot to mention these couple of games as well in regards to ACC-SEC Matchup:

Alabama-Virginia Tech
South Carolina-North Carolina
Georgia-Clemson
Vanderbilt-Wake Forest

But I guess that gets in the way of his argument....07-coffee305-nono07-coffee3
06-02-2013 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 09:16 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Here is the simple answer we should all agree on as ACC and BigXII fans. If both conferences can monetize the benefits of a relationship to the point that it creates stability for both conferences, then you do it. If you can't improve stability and make much money thru a tie up, then you don't.

Agree with this and it is this simple.

Agree...if it helps both leagues do it...
06-02-2013 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #64
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...
I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.
LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.
cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...

FYI, here's the Sagarin conference ratings for last year...

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%

1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.75 81.57 ( 1) 14 81.64 ( 1)
2 BIG 12 (A) = 79.99 79.38 ( 2) 10 79.54 ( 2)
3 PAC-12 (A) = 76.15 75.58 ( 3) 12 75.85 ( 3)
4 BIG TEN (A) = 75.87 75.05 ( 4) 12 75.24 ( 4)
5 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 72.83 72.73 ( 5) 4 72.82 ( 5)
6 BIG EAST (A) = 72.16 71.87 ( 7) 8 71.91 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.64 71.92 ( 6) 12 71.80 ( 7)

And here are the Sagarin conference ratings for the previous year...

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%

1 BIG 12 (A) = 83.61 82.83 ( 1) 10 83.08 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.88 81.60 ( 2) 12 81.27 ( 2)
3 BIG TEN (A) = 75.55 75.30 ( 4) 12 75.49 ( 3)
4 PAC-12 (A) = 74.72 75.38 ( 3) 12 75.14 ( 4)
5 BIG EAST (A) = 72.41 72.86 ( 5) 8 72.82 ( 5)
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 71.92 71.49 ( 6) 4 71.59 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.23 71.03 ( 7) 12 71.06 ( 7)
06-02-2013 09:50 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #65
Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 05:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

Who says it has to be every team? I would think its a handful of matchups that make sense instead of forcing a top to bottom tournament square peg in a round hole
06-02-2013 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #66
Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 06:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 03:12 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 08:39 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

Why? Playing Duke, Virginia and a possibly not-that-good Pitt team more frequently is going to help out the Atlantic division teams how? Even UNC could be a drag on the strength of schedule. Outside of a few years under Brown, UNC's been pretty mediocre/poor for the better part of 30 years.

Seems to me a school like FSU is better off with UF as #9 and ND or a higher-end OOC as #10 than adding a 9th ACC game.

Adding a 9th game actually helps SOS. You're adding another 14 games against each other when most of those would have been against FCS or lower-end non power conference schools. FSU isn't giving up Florida nor would the ACC give up ND even after going to 9 conference games.

As for UNC, it's widely speculated that UNC is a sleeping giant in college football. Mack Brown and Dick Crum both showed you can be very successful at UNC. After Brown left, UNC went into a decade of mediocrity. Butch Davis came along and some of the mojo started coming back. Larry Fedora is a good coach and I believe UNC will be a force in the coming years.

It's nice to know you are optimistic about your school. In other news Ku, Wazzu, Iowa, and Kentucky fans all feel the same way.

All kidding aside Fedora is a good coach and should get the ship turned although I expected Butch to do better.
06-02-2013 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie4Skins Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,909
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Ed O'Bannon
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 10:43 AM)S11 Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 05:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

Who says it has to be every team? I would think its a handful of matchups that make sense instead of forcing a top to bottom tournament square peg in a round hole

There are more sensible options in the PAC 12 for you to play than in the ACC. Outside of a couple ACC teams vs WVU the entire idea of a Big 12-ACC alliance is a square peg in a round hole.
06-02-2013 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaminandjachin Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,199
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UNC
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 10:46 AM)S11 Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 06:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 03:12 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 08:39 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

Why? Playing Duke, Virginia and a possibly not-that-good Pitt team more frequently is going to help out the Atlantic division teams how? Even UNC could be a drag on the strength of schedule. Outside of a few years under Brown, UNC's been pretty mediocre/poor for the better part of 30 years.

Seems to me a school like FSU is better off with UF as #9 and ND or a higher-end OOC as #10 than adding a 9th ACC game.

Adding a 9th game actually helps SOS. You're adding another 14 games against each other when most of those would have been against FCS or lower-end non power conference schools. FSU isn't giving up Florida nor would the ACC give up ND even after going to 9 conference games.

As for UNC, it's widely speculated that UNC is a sleeping giant in college football. Mack Brown and Dick Crum both showed you can be very successful at UNC. After Brown left, UNC went into a decade of mediocrity. Butch Davis came along and some of the mojo started coming back. Larry Fedora is a good coach and I believe UNC will be a force in the coming years.

It's nice to know you are optimistic about your school. In other news Ku, Wazzu, Iowa, and Kentucky fans all feel the same way.

All kidding aside Fedora is a good coach and should get the ship turned although I expected Butch to do better.

I think Butch was getting there. The sanctions were a killer though. As for Fedora, UNC went 8-4 last year and three of the losses were by a total of 9 points. I think the heels have a really good shot at going 10-2 and even playing in the conference championship game this year. If UNC can win 9-10 games a year including wins over decent non-conference opponents...I'm happy.
06-02-2013 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaminandjachin Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,199
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UNC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 09:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:16 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Here is the simple answer we should all agree on as ACC and BigXII fans. If both conferences can monetize the benefits of a relationship to the point that it creates stability for both conferences, then you do it. If you can't improve stability and make much money thru a tie up, then you don't.

Agree with this and it is this simple.

Agree...if it helps both leagues do it...

If the ACC can't get a network and this helps then I'm for it. However, until that is decided, the ACC should focus on getting the network up and running...an alliance takes a backseat.
06-02-2013 12:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mj4life Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,153
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: unc
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 10:43 AM)S11 Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 05:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

Who says it has to be every team? I would think its a handful of matchups that make sense instead of forcing a top to bottom tournament square peg in a round hole

that's my thinking also, i doubt this is a top to bottom schedule every team in the conference type arrangement. a few noncon football games & bowls games yearly & do the same in Bball plus whatever else they plan to do
06-02-2013 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #71
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...
I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.
LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...

Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 05:02 PM by cuseroc.)
06-02-2013 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 11:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 10:43 AM)S11 Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 05:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

Who says it has to be every team? I would think its a handful of matchups that make sense instead of forcing a top to bottom tournament square peg in a round hole

There are more sensible options in the PAC 12 for you to play than in the ACC. Outside of a couple ACC teams vs WVU the entire idea of a Big 12-ACC alliance is a square peg in a round hole.

Which is why I think we as fans should consider the real implications of such an alliance. Since it doesn't make a ton of sense from a competitive/ rivalry point of view ( neither league is hurting for nonconference competition and there isn't a lot of natural rivalries), the powers that be must be looking at it from another perspective. We know that the Big 12 helped the ACC try draw up a GOR, presumably seeing a stable ACC as a positive. Now we hear of some scheduling and other deals in the works. I don't think it is a huge extrapolation that Bowlsby and Swofford are saying "we are the two most at risk conferences moving forward. What kinds of things can we do to enhance stability prior to when the next round of TV contracts come up? Is there a better model?"
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 05:35 PM by Frog in the Kitchen Sink.)
06-02-2013 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #73
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...
I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.
LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...
Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory, are going to suddenly make the ACC jump from the 7th best football conference to the top tier, like you seem to think it will. And it remains to be seen how well FSU and Clemson will do this season. Highly ranked teams in the preseason have been known to tank before. Both FSU and Clemson have done that recently...
06-02-2013 06:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #74
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 06:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.
LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...
Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory, are going to suddenly make the ACC jump from the 7th best football conference to the top tier, like you seem to think it will.


Show some proof where I even remotely made such claims that SU and Pitt will jump the Acc to first, or even improve Acc fb. No ifs, ands or buts. Just show some proof, a link, a quote or anything, anywhere on this site where I said this or implied this or thought this. If you cant show any proof, dont even bother to respond, because any other response will just be an excuse where you are trying to dig yourself out from making stuff up.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 08:40 PM by cuseroc.)
06-02-2013 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #75
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 06:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.
LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...
Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory,

Here is something that SU has done on the football field in recent memory that you will find significant:

2010

Syracuse 19 WV 14

2011

Syracuse 49 WV 23

2012

Syracuse 38 WV 14


07-coffee3
06-02-2013 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #76
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 08:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 06:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...
Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory,
Here is something that SU has done on the football field in recent memory that you will find significant:

2010

Syracuse 19 WV 14

2011

Syracuse 49 WV 23

2012

Syracuse 38 WV 14
Call me when the Orange win a BCS bowl game or a playoff game. THAT would be significant. A conference game or Pinstripe Bowl win doesn't cut the mustard...

As for your other comment, you're right. You never said anything about Pitt and Syracuse making the ACC better. But it's clear that your change in attitude towards the ACC is in large part because of your change in affiliation...

I was just tweaking your nose about it... 03-nerner
06-02-2013 08:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #77
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 08:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 08:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 06:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  cuse, when did the ACC become such a great conference? You were one of the ones saying how mediocre it was, right up until Syracuse was invited, and now suddenly the ACC is great. I think you're reaching. The B12's strength rating beats the ACC's, and has for several years...
Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory,
Here is something that SU has done on the football field in recent memory that you will find significant:

2010

Syracuse 19 WV 14

2011

Syracuse 49 WV 23

2012

Syracuse 38 WV 14
Call me when the Orange win a BCS bowl game or a playoff game. THAT would be significant. A conference game or Pinstripe Bowl win doesn't cut the mustard...

As for your other comment, you're right. You never said anything about Pitt and Syracuse making the ACC better. But it's clear that your change in attitude towards the ACC is in large part because of your change in affiliation...

I was just tweaking your nose about it... 03-nerner

Cuse smacking the Eers around the last 3 years was significant to Eer fans like yourself. How can such an "inferior program beat the mighty Eers?"

And of course my attitude changed regarding the Acc, I no longer despise the conference. Why would I when SU is now part of the conference?01-wingedeagle

But my thoughts about the Acc stems from more than just homerism. As of last year, the league improved its fortunes on the gridiron during bowl season with some significant wins. Clemson has a winner for a coach whos going to be there for a while, as does FSU. Miami will bounce back with Golden once the threats are over with. UNC is improving with its current coach. VT will be back as long as Beamer is there. Louisville is playing at a high level. Syracuse has greatly improved from its losing seasons from 2005- 2009. SU's DC (whom Eer fans and Gino Smith knows very well) is now the HC. The Big 12 is a good league. I just think that once you get passed Okl. and Texas it gets jumbled.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 08:58 PM by cuseroc.)
06-02-2013 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #78
RE: Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-02-2013 08:57 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 08:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 08:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 06:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 04:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Those memory lapses that you say you experience must come and go, lol. Now that Clemson is doing very well and FSU seems to have regained momentum and Louisville is playing some great football, you understand that things dont stay the same, correct? The fact that the Big 12 has lost 4 schools also shows that things dont remain the same. I also felt that ACC basketball was worst than Acc football and that Big East basketball was miles ahead of Acc basketball. But that isnt true anymore either.
My memory is very random in nature. That's one of the problems of traumatic brain injuries. But once in a while I do some research to refresh my memory. Perhaps I should have linked to a couple of examples to better clarify that...

As for things going in cycles, yes that does happen. But I doubt that the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, neither of whom has done anything significant on the football field in recent memory,
Here is something that SU has done on the football field in recent memory that you will find significant:

2010

Syracuse 19 WV 14

2011

Syracuse 49 WV 23

2012

Syracuse 38 WV 14
Call me when the Orange win a BCS bowl game or a playoff game. THAT would be significant. A conference game or Pinstripe Bowl win doesn't cut the mustard...

As for your other comment, you're right. You never said anything about Pitt and Syracuse making the ACC better. But it's clear that your change in attitude towards the ACC is in large part because of your change in affiliation...

I was just tweaking your nose about it... 03-nerner
Cuse smacking the Eers around the last 3 years was significant to Eer fans like yourself. How can such an "inferior program beat the mighty Eers?"

And of course my attitude changed regarding the Acc, I no longer despise the conference. Why would I when SU is now part of the conference?01-wingedeagle

But my thoughts about the Acc stems from more than just homerism. As of last year, the league improved its fortunes on the gridiron during bowl season with some significant wins. Clemson has a winner for a coach whos going to be there for a while, as does FSU. Miami will bounce back with Golden once the threats are over with. UNC is improving with its current coach. VT will be back as long as Beamer is there. Louisville is playing at a high level. Syracuse has greatly improved from its losing seasons from 2005- 2009. SU's DC (whom Eer fans and Gino Smith knows very well) is now the HC. The Big 12 is a good league. I just think that once you get passed Okl. and Texas it gets jumbled.
You guys had a very good DC, that's for sure. He had WVU's number, just like USF did against Pat White. But he wasn't great, or Syracuse would have been able to do the same against every team in The BEast, instead of just doing it to WVU. I also think Syracuse played their best against the Mountaineers, partly due to the long standing rivalry, and because WVU was considered the best team in the conference most years...

Syracuse played a much more aggressive defense against WVU than anyone else in the conference, gambling that their pressure would get to the QB before he was able to get the ball out of his hands. With the weak offensive line WVU had, especially in the middle of the line, that caused a lot of problems. IMO losing the middle of our offensive line is actually going to improve the line. We've got bigger players coming in, due to Bedenbaugh's recruiting, and Ron Crook will build a good OL using all that talent...

It remains to be seen how good a head coach Schaffer wil be. But I think he'll do at least as well as Marrone did, now that he's playing in the ACC. He should have more cupcake games to work with, due to the larger size of the ACC. The 8 teams in The BEast were usually pretty evenly matched, which made for much more drama. The ACC's tiers aren't as closely spaced...
06-02-2013 09:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #79
Small update on the ACC/ Big 12 alliance
(06-01-2013 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 07:32 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 07:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  Besides wasn't it the Big 12 who helped you write your GOR?

Unless you mean "The Dude's" constant ACC doomsday predictions inspired the conference to stick together to prove him wrong, I'm not sure that I follow.

I forget which article it was but one of the recent ones disclosed that the Big 12 worked with the ACC to craft the ACC GOR based on a lot of the groundwork we did with ours.

So we essentially were cooperating in that effort behind the scenes.

That's news to me. Good find. Let me know if you come across the article again.

Got it!

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...layoff-era

Quote:That conversation is useless, at least for now, after ACC commissioner John Swofford convinced his membership to drop the $50-million exit fee model and sign a grant of rights. The Big 12, which signed its own grant of rights in September, even talked with the ACC about wording of the grant of rights in January.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 09:55 AM by 1845 Bear.)
06-04-2013 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.