(01-02-2012 12:31 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 08:52 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 11:59 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 08:21 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  Temple needs to improve it's football and maybe actually win the MAC before being considered

On a number of occasions I hear as a reply when I put forth the reasons why Temple would be a good fit into the ACC or even Big East for that matter “win the MAC before Temple can be considered for expansion into another conference” Let’s see, basketball has won 3 of the last 4 A-10 titles, and 3 in a row, oh, but we don’t count basketball. SMU has won how many conference football championships in the last 10 years, how about SDSU? That didn’t stop them from going to the Big East. Boston College to the ACC, last time they won a football championship was in 2004 and that was with a record of 4 – 2 and was tied with 3 other teams. 4 teams tied for first with 7 teams in the conference, hardly an impressive championship.

There is no discounting ECU football success, back to back championships is something to be proud of but if the ACC, or any conference is considering a school for all sports (given the fact that football and basketball are the 2 main revenue producing sports) how can you justify the ECU basketball program? 0 conference championships in the 16 year history of the conference, an overall record since the 2002 – 2003 season of 100 wins and 165 loses for a winning percentage of .377. A conference record for the same period of 37 wins and 105 loses for a winning percentage of .260. Its best season in that period is an overall record of 2 games over .500.

If a team is being considered for what it can bring to the table, it’s the programs as a whole; it just can’t be looked at as football only. So by the same rights I can make a broad brushed comment about ECU saying “ECU needs to improve its basketball and maybe actually win a C-USA basketball championship before being considered”

Nothing is ever that black and white, it’s all shades of grey.

Big East's expansion doesnt count as the people i charge do know have any clue on what their doing. They want big markets regardless of if people go see the teams. FACT: All 3 CUSA teams leaving is in the bottom half of basketball attendance currently nor has SMU or UCF sniffed a basketball championship, with Houston getting lucky at their most recent one.

Moving on, have you not followed ECU basketball last year and this year? We're improving and may win a championship this year

I'm not going to get into a battle and turn this into a CR thread. I just want to present facts about ECU.

(01-02-2012 03:27 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  ND and whomever ND wants.

As for Temple they should never be considered(blackballed) due to them getting kicked out from the BE. Who would want a school that got kicked out of that conference, not an AQ conference I tell you what.

Tulane has the academics that the ACC likes so they would be the #1 non-AQ school the ACC should get if they couldn't get Rutgers or UConn as #16

TULANE?!?!?!?!?! Their last winning season was 2002

Only 11 winning season since 1966

Yes, Tulane they are the only non-AQ school that should even be considered since they have the only decent academics(50th) out of the countless many.

AQ's
1. ND
2. Penn St.
3. Texas
4. UConn
5. Rutgers
non-AQ
6. Tulane

So for SPORTS expansion you're looking at ACADEMICS. That''s almost as bad as the Big East's thinking...

(01-02-2012 03:36 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 12:31 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 08:52 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 11:59 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 08:21 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  Temple needs to improve it's football and maybe actually win the MAC before being considered

On a number of occasions I hear as a reply when I put forth the reasons why Temple would be a good fit into the ACC or even Big East for that matter “win the MAC before Temple can be considered for expansion into another conference” Let’s see, basketball has won 3 of the last 4 A-10 titles, and 3 in a row, oh, but we don’t count basketball. SMU has won how many conference football championships in the last 10 years, how about SDSU? That didn’t stop them from going to the Big East. Boston College to the ACC, last time they won a football championship was in 2004 and that was with a record of 4 – 2 and was tied with 3 other teams. 4 teams tied for first with 7 teams in the conference, hardly an impressive championship.

There is no discounting ECU football success, back to back championships is something to be proud of but if the ACC, or any conference is considering a school for all sports (given the fact that football and basketball are the 2 main revenue producing sports) how can you justify the ECU basketball program? 0 conference championships in the 16 year history of the conference, an overall record since the 2002 – 2003 season of 100 wins and 165 loses for a winning percentage of .377. A conference record for the same period of 37 wins and 105 loses for a winning percentage of .260. Its best season in that period is an overall record of 2 games over .500.

If a team is being considered for what it can bring to the table, it’s the programs as a whole; it just can’t be looked at as football only. So by the same rights I can make a broad brushed comment about ECU saying “ECU needs to improve its basketball and maybe actually win a C-USA basketball championship before being considered”

Nothing is ever that black and white, it’s all shades of grey.

Big East's expansion doesnt count as the people i charge do know have any clue on what their doing. They want big markets regardless of if people go see the teams. FACT: All 3 CUSA teams leaving is in the bottom half of basketball attendance currently nor has SMU or UCF sniffed a basketball championship, with Houston getting lucky at their most recent one.

Moving on, have you not followed ECU basketball last year and this year? We're improving and may win a championship this year

I'm not going to get into a battle and turn this into a CR thread. I just want to present facts about ECU.

(01-02-2012 03:27 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  ND and whomever ND wants.

As for Temple they should never be considered(blackballed) due to them getting kicked out from the BE. Who would want a school that got kicked out of that conference, not an AQ conference I tell you what.

Tulane has the academics that the ACC likes so they would be the #1 non-AQ school the ACC should get if they couldn't get Rutgers or UConn as #16

TULANE?!?!?!?!?! Their last winning season was 2002

Only 11 winning season since 1966

Yes, Tulane they are the only non-AQ school that should even be considered since they have the only decent academics(50th) out of the countless many.

AQ's
1. ND
2. Penn St.
3. Texas
4. UConn
5. Rutgers
non-AQ
6. Tulane

So for SPORTS expansion you're looking at ACADEMICS. That''s almost as bad as the Big East's thinking...

The ACC is a group of colleges and universities. Their partnership extends beyond the playing field. They clearly emphasized academics is the last 2 rounds of expansion. If that is bad thinking, I'll take it any day.

(01-02-2012 02:58 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Louisville and Cincinnati are both very close geographically to the ACC states, and both have Great athletic programs and both have very good academics contrary to popular beliefs and improving as both are becoming far more than the commuter schools from 20 years ago. ACC already have Urban markets in Miami, Boston ,Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Atlanta among others, so bringing in both schools would be a great addition.

the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

(01-02-2012 04:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 02:58 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Louisville and Cincinnati are both very close geographically to the ACC states, and both have Great athletic programs and both have very good academics contrary to popular beliefs and improving as both are becoming far more than the commuter schools from 20 years ago. ACC already have Urban markets in Miami, Boston ,Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Atlanta among others, so bringing in both schools would be a great addition.

the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

Doing a quick search of the USNWR ranking all current ACC teams (including Pitt and Syracuse) are inside the top 101 (NC State and FSU both ranked at 101). Looking at the names mentioned around this thread, I will list them below in order of academic rankings (sorry if I left any out, it wasn’t intentional). I am a supporter of high academic standards by the conference even if Temple is on the outside looking in. That being said I would have to say Rutgers #68 and UConn #58 would be the 2 most desirable programs considering both academics and athletics.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

(01-03-2012 09:51 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 04:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 02:58 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Louisville and Cincinnati are both very close geographically to the ACC states, and both have Great athletic programs and both have very good academics contrary to popular beliefs and improving as both are becoming far more than the commuter schools from 20 years ago. ACC already have Urban markets in Miami, Boston ,Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Atlanta among others, so bringing in both schools would be a great addition.

the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

Doing a quick search of the USNWR ranking all current ACC teams (including Pitt and Syracuse) are inside the top 101 (NC State and FSU both ranked at 101). Looking at the names mentioned around this thread, I will list them below in order of academic rankings (sorry if I left any out, it wasn’t intentional). I am a supporter of high academic standards by the conference even if Temple is on the outside looking in. That being said I would have to say Rutgers #68 and UConn #58 would be the 2 most desirable programs considering both academics and athletics.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

You forgot that vertically challenged green team from Indiana. I think they are #19.

(01-03-2012 02:09 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 09:51 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 04:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 02:58 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Louisville and Cincinnati are both very close geographically to the ACC states, and both have Great athletic programs and both have very good academics contrary to popular beliefs and improving as both are becoming far more than the commuter schools from 20 years ago. ACC already have Urban markets in Miami, Boston ,Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Atlanta among others, so bringing in both schools would be a great addition.

the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

Doing a quick search of the USNWR ranking all current ACC teams (including Pitt and Syracuse) are inside the top 101 (NC State and FSU both ranked at 101). Looking at the names mentioned around this thread, I will list them below in order of academic rankings (sorry if I left any out, it wasn’t intentional). I am a supporter of high academic standards by the conference even if Temple is on the outside looking in. That being said I would have to say Rutgers #68 and UConn #58 would be the 2 most desirable programs considering both academics and athletics.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

You forgot that vertically challenged green team from Indiana. I think they are #19.

Sorry, but I didn’t think I needed to mention them. They are on the TOP of everyone’s list, and their academic standards are without reproach.

(01-03-2012 03:00 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 02:09 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 09:51 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 04:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 02:58 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Louisville and Cincinnati are both very close geographically to the ACC states, and both have Great athletic programs and both have very good academics contrary to popular beliefs and improving as both are becoming far more than the commuter schools from 20 years ago. ACC already have Urban markets in Miami, Boston ,Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Atlanta among others, so bringing in both schools would be a great addition.

the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

Doing a quick search of the USNWR ranking all current ACC teams (including Pitt and Syracuse) are inside the top 101 (NC State and FSU both ranked at 101). Looking at the names mentioned around this thread, I will list them below in order of academic rankings (sorry if I left any out, it wasn’t intentional). I am a supporter of high academic standards by the conference even if Temple is on the outside looking in. That being said I would have to say Rutgers #68 and UConn #58 would be the 2 most desirable programs considering both academics and athletics.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

You forgot that vertically challenged green team from Indiana. I think they are #19.

Sorry, but I didn’t think I needed to mention them. They are on the TOP of everyone’s list, and their academic standards are without reproach.

No worries. You gave me the opportunity to use 'vertically challenged' in a post. I'm happy.

(01-01-2012 08:50 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Tulane gives you a fifth school for the Southern pod so you don't have to split up the North Carolina schools if the league went to 20 teams. Sub in Vanderbilt there if you prefer. Vandy just a less realistic target. I guess you could get really unrealistic and sub in Florida but I don't see that as even remotely likely.

Florida and Vanderbilt are more realistic targets than Penn State who you included. At least SEC schools don't leave their TV rights behind for 25 years. So, at least they don't have that albatross of an impediment to leaving.

Your pods suck. You don't want to split the N.C. schools but you split the Va. schools ? F*ck that! As long as we're dreaming go to 24 schools, raid the SEC and B10 and put the Va. and N.C. schools in the same pod.

North
-----
Boston College
Maryland
Notre Dame
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Syracuse

Mid-Atlantic
-----
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

South East
-----
Clemson
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Miami

South West
-----
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

(01-03-2012 03:36 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 03:00 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 02:09 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 09:51 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-02-2012 04:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  the ACC will want to see a top 100 comprehensive academic ranking (ARWU and/or USNWR) before a school is considered.

Doing a quick search of the USNWR ranking all current ACC teams (including Pitt and Syracuse) are inside the top 101 (NC State and FSU both ranked at 101). Looking at the names mentioned around this thread, I will list them below in order of academic rankings (sorry if I left any out, it wasn’t intentional). I am a supporter of high academic standards by the conference even if Temple is on the outside looking in. That being said I would have to say Rutgers #68 and UConn #58 would be the 2 most desirable programs considering both academics and athletics.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

You forgot that vertically challenged green team from Indiana. I think they are #19.

Sorry, but I didn’t think I needed to mention them. They are on the TOP of everyone’s list, and their academic standards are without reproach.

No worries. You gave me the opportunity to use 'vertically challenged' in a post. I'm happy.

I have to admit, it was a great line!

Pac will poach Boise and possibly SDSU or TCU in due time

(01-04-2012 11:31 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  Pac will poach Boise and possibly SDSU or TCU in due time

Boise has a long, long, long way to go academically before the PAC even thinks about adding them.

(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

1st off you don't add schools unless payout increases
as for Rutgers & Conn, i can't believe NJ & Conn wraped around NYC with Syc would not be a valueable asset with TV contracts
travell cost would go down & with less travell atten improves
certainlly help wih NCAA BB & WBB credits
8 bowls to 10 or 12
how about 2 CBB tourn

and yes, letting B-10 in 1st would be a mistake

(01-04-2012 07:10 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  1st off you don't add schools unless payout increases
as for Rutgers & Conn, i can't believe NJ & Conn wraped around NYC with Syc would not be a valueable asset with TV contracts
travell cost would go down & with less travell atten improves
certainlly help wih NCAA BB & WBB credits
8 bowls to 10 or 12
how about 2 CBB tourn

and yes, letting B-10 in 1st would be a mistake

With the Big 10's deal with the Pac 12 and them adding Nebraska, I'm just not so sure the Big 10 is in such a big hurry to grab the NYC market.

Notre Dame and Rutgers for 15 and 16.

(01-04-2012 07:10 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  1st off you don't add schools unless payout increases
as for Rutgers & Conn, i can't believe NJ & Conn wraped around NYC with Syc would not be a valueable asset with TV contracts
travell cost would go down & with less travell atten improves
certainlly help wih NCAA BB & WBB credits
8 bowls to 10 or 12
how about 2 CBB tourn

and yes, letting B-10 in 1st would be a mistake

The central issue is not whether the combination of RU and Uconn would provide "value" but rather would the combination of the two result in less of a payout per team.

Look at this way - say, the revised ACC contract (which can now be opened up because the ACC added two schools) results in a per school payout of $18M. (Note: these numbers are illustrative only as I realize the actual deal once finalized could be more or less.)

If RU and Uconn were added, those two schools would be required to move the needle up in terms of payouts - say to $20M per school. That mean that these schools would need to have an incremental value of $40M to the ACC (or a whopping $400M over the expected 10 year life of the contract.)

People often forget that there is a limit to what the television networks will pay for the product. While the $$'s have significantly gone up in recent years, there is a limit. Anyone who doubts this can just look at the real estate market this past decade.

Frankly, these schools cannot bring this kind of value to the table. This is not a reflection on them, of course. Few schools could bring such value (cue: ND). This is precisely why the ACC stopped at 14. It is also why nobody else has gone to 16 either.

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

I do happen to agree with this but as with any situation conditions are fluid. If suddenly a Rutgers & UConn package increased payouts in a substantial enough way and ND isn't budging they MIGHT opt to lock up the East Coast.

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

Disagree. The Pac-16 proposal would have been a killer windfall to that league. As it was the additions of Utah and Colorado allowed them to catch up to both the SEC and BiG when they were closer to the Big East in terms of $$$ than either of the big two before then.

Quote:My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

And here is where I agree. It's a matter of who is added that determines if the 16-team model will work for the perceived "lesser conferences". For the Pac, the additions of Texas and Oklahoma would have made that a no-brainer. For the ACC the addition of either ND or PSU makes it attractive while getting both makes it a no-brainer.

For the BiG and the SEC, they don't need to add powerhouses per se. It's why markets seemed to be driving the most recent SEC expansion and the BTN numbers will likely drive any future BiG expansion.

Having said all of this, the notion that there will be four 16 team conferences when it is all said and done is unlikely, imho. The main reason being that while the Texahoma schools to the Pac and any two teams to the SEC are still within the realm of possibility, the only thing likely to get either the ACC or the BiG to expand further is ND.

And as long as the Irish have two solid options available they will remain indy for football.

Cheers,
Neil