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.