Jump to content

Time to kick BC out of the ACC


Majin Buu

Recommended Posts

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.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely accurate. The ACC was forced to take VT by the governor of VA' date=' 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.[/quote']

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"' date=' 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.[/quote']

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget whether Connecticut's lawsuit came before or after the first expansion effort' date=' 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.

[/quote']

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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' date=' it just doesn't generate much interest outside of fans of the participating schools.[/quote']

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...