Time to kick BC out of the ACC

[Majin Buu]

The Boston television market aside, there are a lot of great programs in the same geographical region as most ACC schools that make more sense like West Virginia, South Florida etc. Besides, Boston only cares about the “Sox” anyway.

[geschinger]

The Boston television market aside, there are a lot of great programs in the same geographical region as most ACC schools that make more sense like West Virginia, South Florida etc. Besides, Boston only cares about the “Sox” anyway.

Why would schools like WVU an USF want to downgrade the conference they are associated with?

[Big Mac]

Why would schools like WVU an USF want to downgrade the conference they are associated with?

ACC is better tha the Big East, easily.

[Jdan14]

Why would schools like WVU an USF want to downgrade the conference they are associated with?

There isn't even a question the ACC is the better conference.


The Boston television market aside, there are a lot of great programs in the same geographical region as most ACC schools that make more sense like West Virginia, South Florida etc. Besides, Boston only cares about the “Sox” anyway.

BC has been in two of the past ACCC why would they get kicked out? Adding WVU would rekindle the VT WVU rivalry, good or bad. They are a kind of awkward team to be in the ACC being so north but they have definitely been a good thing for the conference.

[geschinger]

ACC is better tha the Big East, easily.

It might (probably will be) this year - another down year for the Big East - but since the realignment the Big East has been the better conference, easily. Although surprisingly enough, in a down year the Big East is still outperforming a couple of the other BCS conferences.

The Big East is constantly underrated. As an example casual fans (and many of the lazier pundits) usually assume programs like an FSU with their history have better teams than say a program like USF when under just about any criteria USF has been the better football program in recent years.

[Majin Buu]

My three reasons:

1. It costs a fortune for ACC schools to send non-revenue generating sports back and forth to Boston, and every away game for BC teams is always going to be far away. The bulk of a team’s schedule, no matter what sport, is played in-conference. It doesn't really make sense for BC to not play the bulk of their schedule against Pitt, Rutgers, Connecticut, Syracuse, Cincinnati etc.

2. By virtue of what the Big East has done with basketball, they can't possibly expand Big East football to play a conference title game unless some of the basketball only schools move to division 1, which doesn't seem likely right now. Adding more schools will cut the basketball revenue pie into too small a piece for each school. Do you want to share with 11 others, or share with 19 others?

3. Can BC and some other ACC school ever really generate a rivalry that will transcend the ages? I say no. Their closest would be rival is Maryland. Part of the heat in a rivalry game is the fact that the two rival schools are close together. Students from opposing schools can travel.

[JamesI]

Remember, the ACC originally wanted Syracuse back when Miami and BC moved from Big East to ACC. Imagine Syracuse in the ACC.

I think USF and BC should change conferences. USF is more in the geographic region of the ACC, while BC fits better in the Big East.

I say this as a Syracuse fan, so really when it comes to Football at least, whoever is in the conference with us will be better than us.

[geschinger]

Remember, the ACC originally wanted Syracuse back when Miami and BC moved from Big East to ACC. Imagine Syracuse in the ACC.

I think USF and BC should change conferences. USF is more in the geographic region of the ACC, while BC fits better in the Big East.

I say this as a Syracuse fan, so really when it comes to Football at least, whoever is in the conference with us will be better than us.

The ACC wants the television presence in the Northeast. I don't think they would consider USF to be an attractive fit as they already have the presence in that market w/FSU. The desire for Syracuse was driven by Miami who wanted to keep that rivalry alive. There is a decent sized UM alumni presence in NY and the Shalala - the president of UM has Syracuse ties.

What the conference really wanted was BC and Syracuse. They wanted no part of VT and only took them after Syracuse decided to stay in the Big East.

[Majin Buu]

The ACC wants the television presence in the Northeast. I don't think they would consider USF to be an attractive fit as they already have the presence in that market w/FSU. The desire for Syracuse was driven by Miami who wanted to keep that rivalry alive. There is a decent sized UM alumni presence in NY and the Shalala - the president of UM has Syracuse ties.

What the conference really wanted was BC and Syracuse. They wanted no part of VT and only took them after Syracuse decided to stay in the Big East.

IMO, VT joining the ACC has been nothing short of great. Not only did expansion into NY and Boston didn’t make any sense (the ACC is not the NFL), it also didn’t result in the ACC getting a television contract al la the SEC or a television network al la the Big Ten. The SEC has a big money television contract despite most of the schools not being located in major television markets. What the SEC did do is align based on geographical location. You can drive to any SEC school in a reasonable amount of time. This has led to more rivalries. Nowadays, it seems like every SEC game is a rivalry game.

[geschinger]

IMO, VT joining the ACC has been nothing short of great. Not only did expansion into NY and Boston didn’t make any sense (the ACC is not the NFL), it also didn’t result in the ACC getting a television contract al la the SEC or a television network al la the Big Ten. The SEC has a big money television contract despite most of the schools not being located in major television markets. What the SEC did do is align based on geographical location. You can drive to any SEC school in a reasonable amount of time. This has led to more rivalries. Nowadays, it seems like every SEC game is a rivalry game.

VT instead of Syracuse has been huge. I'd hate to think where ACC football would be today w/o them. The ACC needed to expand to the Northeast to expand the markets for eyeballs as they were not / are not going to pass the SEC which shares the same general region. And schools like Miami have a lot of their alumni in the NE.

One thing I would be worried about if I was the ACC is the declining interest in the championship game which was the primary reason why they wanted to get to 12 teams. They moved the site due to poor attendance and things got even worse to the point where it really is an embarassment for the conference. Personally I'm not a fan of oversized conferences and championship games.

While it has worked out ok in the SEC due to the overall strength of the conference I much prefer the Pac-10/Big East model where you can't be crowned a league champion without at least having to play everyone else in the conference. There are some years in some of the oversized conferences where two or three of the best teams in the conference are in one division allowing a team that is not in the same class being able to play for a title based on an easy conference schedule.

[Bosibus]

IMO, VT joining the ACC has been nothing short of great. Not only did expansion into NY and Boston didn’t make any sense (the ACC is not the NFL), it also didn’t result in the ACC getting a television contract al la the SEC or a television network al la the Big Ten. The SEC has a big money television contract despite most of the schools not being located in major television markets. What the SEC did do is align based on geographical location. You can drive to any SEC school in a reasonable amount of time. This has led to more rivalries. Nowadays, it seems like every SEC game is a rivalry game.

And the the UVA president was lobbying for VT so that rivalry would mature.

[Dr. FLK]

VT instead of Syracuse has been huge. I'd hate to think where ACC football would be today w/o them. The ACC needed to expand to the Northeast to expand the markets for eyeballs as they were not / are not going to pass the SEC which shares the same general region. And schools like Miami have a lot of their alumni in the NE.

One thing I would be worried about if I was the ACC is the declining interest in the championship game which was the primary reason why they wanted to get to 12 teams. They moved the site due to poor attendance and things got even worse to the point where it really is an embarassment for the conference. Personally I'm not a fan of oversized conferences and championship games.

While it has worked out ok in the SEC due to the overall strength of the conference I much prefer the Pac-10/Big East model where you can't be crowned a league champion without at least having to play everyone else in the conference. There are some years in some of the oversized conferences where two or three of the best teams in the conference are in one division allowing a team that is not in the same class being able to play for a title based on an easy conference schedule.

Says the fan of a conference with approximately 57 basketball teams.;)

[geschinger]

Says the fan of a conference with approximately 57 basketball teams.;)

Once they get to 60 teams, watch out! :)

However even in Big East basketball every team plays every other team in the conference as it should be. I just think it's foolish to have these "championship games" that many times might be a conferences best and 4th best team and giving the winner an auto BCS bid. That may end up being the case this year in the ACC where if I believe the 3 best teams (maybe by a lot?) are VT/UM/GT.

[Majin Buu]

Once they get to 60 teams, watch out! :)

However even in Big East basketball every team plays every other team in the conference as it should be. I just think it's foolish to have these "championship games" that many times might be a conferences best and 4th best team and giving the winner an auto BCS bid. That may end up being the case this year in the ACC where if I believe the 3 best teams (maybe by a lot?) are VT/UM/GT.

Thats true, but the fix for that is not to play in divisions. Have one rivalry game everyone plays each year in a home/at home; rotate the rest of the conference opponents each year. They split the ACC into divisions because they wanted an FSU/Miami championship game. I say, let them play each other every year, and, if they are still the best two teams in the ACC at the end, let them play again.

[geschinger]

Thats true, but the fix for that is not to play in divisions. Have one rivalry game everyone plays each year in a home/at home; rotate the rest of the conference opponents each year. They split the ACC into divisions because they wanted an FSU/Miami championship game. I say, let them play each other every year, and, if they are still the best two teams in the ACC at the end, let them play again.

That would certainly be a better setup but it still doesn't fix the problem that any of the teams that have to play say the three better teams: VT UM and GT this year is at a severe competetive disadvantage to a team that only has to play 1 or 2 of 'em. That would be the case no matter how you work it when a conference is too big.

[PeteCanes]

What the conference really wanted was BC and Syracuse. They wanted no part of VT and only took them after Syracuse decided to stay in the Big East.

That's incorrect. John Swofford was set on adding Virginia Tech. After Syracuse fell through, Miami insisted on VT joining the ACC as a requirement for their own defection to the conference.

.

[geschinger]

That's incorrect. John Swofford was set on adding Virginia Tech. After Syracuse fell through, Miami insisted on VT joining the ACC as a requirement for their own defection to the conference.

.

Of course Swofford did after Syracuse decided to stay in the Big East, noone wanted to expand to 11 teams as it would have been pointless when the goal was to get to 12 for the title game. Miami would not have moved to join an 11 team ACC under any circumstance.

But until Syracuse said no VT was of no interest to the ACC. When the VT president became aware that Syracuse/Miami/BC were considering the offer he went to Swofford to try and be included but was rebuffed. VT then became a party in the lawsuit against the ACC which they only dropped out of some would say in exchange for their invite.

[mweb]

It might (probably will be) this year - another down year for the Big East - but since the realignment the Big East has been the better conference, easily. Although surprisingly enough, in a down year the Big East is still outperforming a couple of the other BCS conferences.

The Big East is constantly underrated. As an example casual fans (and many of the lazier pundits) usually assume programs like an FSU with their history have better teams than say a program like USF when under just about any criteria USF has been the better football program in recent years.

Maybe it is underrated, but there is no question you overrate it a ton!

I think I give you the award of poster with the most bias towards something other than the O's!;)

[RShack]

Once they get to 60 teams, watch out! :)
Well, the Southern Conference had something like 24 teams before schools left to form the SEC and ACC. Not quite 60, but it might as well have been...

[backwardsk]

I was never a fan of any expansion to the ACC after FL State joined. I totally understand the reasoning behind it, but it screws up the basketball schedule (play a home and away game with each team in the conference).

I've always thought that the Big East could form a super conference where it's a mix of football/basketball schools such as Syracuse, BC, Louisville, VT, WVU and keep the non 1-A football schools on the basketball schedule like Georgetown, Seton Hall, and St John's. It would be interesting to see them structure two divisions and work it like soccer where the top division is BCS and the other teams can try to play into that division. That way football programs like Villanova could transition from 1-AA.

[Majin Buu]

I was never a fan of any expansion to the ACC after FL State joined. I totally understand the reasoning behind it, but it screws up the basketball schedule (play a home and away game with each team in the conference).

I've always thought that the Big East could form a super conference where it's a mix of football/basketball schools such as Syracuse, BC, Louisville, VT, WVU and keep the non 1-A football schools on the basketball schedule like Georgetown, Seton Hall, and St John's. It would be interesting to see them structure two divisions and work it like soccer where the top division is BCS and the other teams can try to play into that division. That way football programs like Villanova could transition from 1-AA.

As the big east is presently configured, the only way they will get the financial benefit from a conference playoff game is to push some of the basketball schools to just to D1 in football. So far, only uConn has taken advantage.

I think what you suggest to fix the BCS is a great idea. That way each divison can have their own playoff, but each year there can be movement between the two divisons giving other schools like Cincy or Bosie State a chance to play for a national championship instead of only the anointed "15" (i.e. USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc).

[Birds of B'more]

The ACC wants the television presence in the Northeast. I don't think they would consider USF to be an attractive fit as they already have the presence in that market w/FSU. The desire for Syracuse was driven by Miami who wanted to keep that rivalry alive. There is a decent sized UM alumni presence in NY and the Shalala - the president of UM has Syracuse ties.

What the conference really wanted was BC and Syracuse. They wanted no part of VT and only took them after Syracuse decided to stay in the Big East.

Not entirely accurate. The ACC was forced to take VT by the governor of VA, who threatened to withhold state funds to UVA if they voted for the original MIA/SYR/BC expansion. And since UVA was the swing vote the conference needed to approve expansion (UNC and Duke were against it no matter what) the VA gov made a power play to ensure the other state school wouldn't be left behind.

[Birds of B'more]

That's incorrect. John Swofford was set on adding Virginia Tech. After Syracuse fell through, Miami insisted on VT joining the ACC as a requirement for their own defection to the conference.

.

As I said above, it was the Governor of VA (Mark Warner?) that forced VT into the expansion picture. Syracuse didn't change their mind about bolting the Big East....the ACC left them at the altar after UVA said they would note vote for expansion without VT. Then Syracuse and BC went back to the BE with their tail between their legs, signed a loyalty clause, which BC broke a year later anyway.

[Birds of B'more]

One thing I would be worried about if I was the ACC is the declining interest in the championship game which was the primary reason why they wanted to get to 12 teams. They moved the site due to poor attendance and things got even worse to the point where it really is an embarassment for the conference. Personally I'm not a fan of oversized conferences and championship games.

The problem with the ACC Championship Game is two-fold. One of those can easily be overcome simply by improving the quality of the conference's top teams. Of course the problem this year is that the three best teams in the conference (Mia/VT/GT) are all in the same division so only one of them will make it...and will be playing a much weaker team from the Atlantic Division.

The second problem IMO is that the ACC does not have schools that traditionally "travel well", other than maybe Clemson and VT. So I'm guessing that the folks in the fan bases that do travel would generally prefer to not go to the Championship Game and hope their team wins and then go to the Orange Bowl instead.

[geschinger]

Not entirely accurate. The ACC was forced to take VT by the governor of VA, who threatened to withhold state funds to UVA if they voted for the original MIA/SYR/BC expansion. And since UVA was the swing vote the conference needed to approve expansion (UNC and Duke were against it no matter what) the VA gov made a power play to ensure the other state school wouldn't be left behind.

Syracuse turned down the invite to the ACC or it could have all been a done deal before the lawsuit. The votes were there at that point. The governer's power play was after the lawsuit was filed. The conference had no interest in VT but once forced they decided expansion w/VT was was better than no expansion at all.

[geschinger]

The problem with the ACC Championship Game is two-fold. One of those can easily be overcome simply by improving the quality of the conference's top teams. Of course the problem this year is that the three best teams in the conference (Mia/VT/GT) are all in the same division so only one of them will make it...and will be playing a much weaker team from the Atlantic Division.


It's likely to be a problem most years unless/until FSU can recover. There just isn't enough consistency with the other programs in the conference to sustain a consistently good matchup.



The second problem IMO is that the ACC does not have schools that traditionally "travel well", other than maybe Clemson and VT. So I'm guessing that the folks in the fan bases that do travel would generally prefer to not go to the Championship Game and hope their team wins and then go to the Orange Bowl instead.

Any idea how it did in TV ratings this year? I know the year before they were poor. What is the solution for this? If the TV ratings are disappointing and the game is played in front of tens of thousands of empty seats when the next media deal is ready to be negotiated the revenue that was the whole reason for expansion is not going to be there. I think when they had the expansion they had visions of huge revenues from the Championship game, seasons with multiple BCS participants, etc... It has to be terribly disappointing that none of that has materialized.

[Birds of B'more]

Syracuse turned down the invite to the ACC or it could have all been a done deal before the lawsuit. The votes were there at that point. The governer's power play was after the lawsuit was filed. The conference had no interest in VT but once forced they decided expansion w/VT was was better than no expansion at all.

I forget whether Connecticut's lawsuit came before or after the first expansion effort, but I am 100% certain there were not enough votes for it to pass initially when it was BC/Mia/Syracuse. For expansion to pass, it required 7 "yes" votes of the ACC 9 members (at that time). Duke and UNC were squarely against it from the start because of concerns it would water-down ACC Basketball, and that was their main source of athletic revenues. That's why UVA was needed...the other 6 schools were all-in, but Mark Warner was concerned about what would happen to VT if it was left behind in a Big East that had been picked clean. So seeing that UVA would be the 7th and deciding vote, he pressured UVA's President to go to the ACC and say that either expansion would include VT or UVA would not give the final vote necessary, and used the threat of withholding state money to do it. Had any other votes been there to put expansion over the top, Warner wouldn't have had the leverage to do that.

But your last sentence is correct. The ACC and Miami wanted to be together, come Hell or high water...so if the ACC had to take VT to make that happen, then so be it.

In trying to remember the events, I think that once everyone knew the votes were in place to expand with just Miami and VT, UNC and Duke may have conceded defeat and voted in favor of expansion just as a show of solidarity. But even then, the whole process was a mess and just about every party involved ended up looking bad.

[Birds of B'more]

Any idea how it did in TV ratings this year? I know the year before they were poor. What is the solution for this? If the TV ratings are disappointing and the game is played in front of tens of thousands of empty seats when the next media deal is ready to be negotiated the revenue that was the whole reason for expansion is not going to be there. I think when they had the expansion they had visions of huge revenues from the Championship game, seasons with multiple BCS participants, etc... It has to be terribly disappointing that none of that has materialized.

I'm pretty sure the ratings were about on par with attendance at the game...lousy. Because the game has yet to involve a team that is a player in the national championship picture, it just doesn't generate much interest outside of fans of the participating schools.

Personally I would be just fine if the NCAA stepped in and did away with conference championship games and just gave every D-1A team a 13th game to make up for the revenues lost. The only stipulation I would add is that the extra game would have to be a conference game for all conferences that don't already play a full round-robin.

[geschinger]

I forget whether Connecticut's lawsuit came before or after the first expansion effort, but I am 100% certain there were not enough votes for it to pass initially when it was BC/Mia/Syracuse. For expansion to pass, it required 7 "yes" votes of the ACC 9 members (at that time). Duke and UNC were squarely against it from the start because of concerns it would water-down ACC Basketball, and that was their main source of athletic revenues. That's why UVA was needed...the other 6 schools were all-in, but Mark Warner was concerned about what would happen to VT if it was left behind in a Big East that had been picked clean. So seeing that UVA would be the 7th and deciding vote, he pressured UVA's President to go to the ACC and say that either expansion would include VT or UVA would not give the final vote necessary, and used the threat of withholding state money to do it. Had any other votes been there to put expansion over the top, Warner wouldn't have had the leverage to do that.


They had UVA's vote - one of 7 w/o the governers interference had it happened when the original attempt at expansion was made. The UNC and Duke opposition would not have mattered. UVA's vote didn't come into play until Warner pulled his power play which was after the lawsuit was filed.

[geschinger]

I'm pretty sure the ratings were about on par with attendance at the game...lousy. Because the game has yet to involve a team that is a player in the national championship picture, it just doesn't generate much interest outside of fans of the participating schools.

That's not a recipe for long term success. I want the Big East to expand as they really need 10 teams to optimize. Right now they have too many out of conference games and since the other conferences have more it's hard for them to get as many quality OOC games lined up as they'd like. Especially since the voters in their infinite wisdom don't penalize teams for scheduling a roster full of OOC cupcakes. But I hope they never go past 10 just as I hope the Pac 10 resists the urge to expand.


Personally I would be just fine if the NCAA stepped in and did away with conference championship games and just gave every D-1A team a 13th game to make up for the revenues lost. The only stipulation I would add is that the extra game would have to be a conference game for all conferences that don't already play a full round-robin.

Agree completely. That would improve things a lot but since maximizing revenue trumps what is best for the sport it'll never happen.

[Birds of B'more]

They had UVA's vote - one of 7 w/o the governers interference had it happened when the original attempt at expansion was made. The UNC and Duke opposition would not have mattered. UVA's vote didn't come into play until Warner pulled his power play which was after the lawsuit was filed.

I think we're saying the same thing, just on different timelines. We do agree on UVA....they did want expansion. But I'm pretty sure it was Warner that got to UVA's president before Connecticut's AG filed suit and the original expansion vote was thwarted before it ever happened.

[Birds of B'more]

That's not a recipe for long term success. I want the Big East to expand as they really need 10 teams to optimize. Right now they have too many out of conference games and since the other conferences have more it's hard for them to get as many quality OOC games lined up as they'd like. Especially since the voters in their infinite wisdom don't penalize teams for scheduling a roster full of OOC cupcakes. But I hope they never go past 10 just as I hope the Pac 10 resists the urge to expand.



Agree completely. That would improve things a lot but since maximizing revenue trumps what is best for the sport it'll never happen.

Personally, I think the voters are quite arbitrary in whom they penalize for their OOC schedules. Basically, any of the Big 10 teams can play 4 OOC games against Sister's of the Poor University, dodge one of the tougher teams in the conference because of how the schedule falls, lose a game with that easy schedule, and still be a Top 5 team. Meanwhile, some of the better non-BCS teams are heavily criticized for their OOC schedules, despite the fact that most of the BCS big boys treat those teams like they have the H1N1 virus.

The Big East does need to add a couple teams. Trouble is they have no room to add them as full members because they already have a 16-team conference for basketball (which is the BE's calling card, not football). Add two more teams and I think that would be too many pieces of the pie to have to share. They'd have to expel two of the non-football playing teams to make it work, IMO. I think they also came to some sort of agreement with Notre Dame to get 2 or 3 games a year, which helps as far as reputation since ND is typically the most overrated team in any sport.