On Tuesday, Pitt extended AD Steve Pederson's contract for five more years and he gave a fairly informative interview about a lot of different issues, notably how Pitt's invitation to the ACC came about and what the school's thinking was in choosing the ACC over the Big 12 and who Pitt sees as its comps.

Personally, I cannot believe they extended the guy's contract as he has overseen more disasters than FEMA. However, the Pitt brass is not exactly renowned for its rock solid decision making so perhaps I shouldn't be too terribly surprised?

At any rate, I thought some of you might find the realignment piece of this story somewhat illuminating.

Here are the most interesting tidbits to me:

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
As Pitt gets set to officially enter the ACC next month, Pederson recalled the first time the idea came up. Just as it seemed externally, he said everything fell into place very quickly. His first real conversation with ACC commissioner John Swofford came only about a month before the deal was officially announced in September 2011.


"The first time that it became real for me was the first real conversation John Swofford and I had about this," Pederson said. "To me, that was when it goes from an idea to more the reality of all this. As we had discussion, it became clearer and clearer that there could be a way to get this done if we both were on the same page with what they were looking for and what we were looking for.

I think this demonstrates that these ADs and commissioners are in almost constant contact with each other. Pederson went out of his way to distinguish between informal and formal discussions and I think that's what he is getting at here.

I am not an insider, I'm just some schlub who gives to the program and attends most home and away games. However, even I had heard the rumor that Pitt was talking to the ACC about two weeks before the announcement. I wasn't sure if it was true or not but it was definitely out there. I'm curious if the Syracuse fans were hearing the same thing or if they did a better job of keeping that secret?

After the whole Villanova football debacle, the writing was on the wall that the Big East as we had known it was probably not long for this world and we also knew that being a college program in a decidedly pro sports market like Pittsburgh, we could not afford to be left behind in the remnants of the remnants of the old Big East.

That dog was not going to hunt.

Truthfully, at the time most of us - including me - thought we were headed to the Big 12 and if it had come to that we would have gritted our teeth and dealt with it. Hey, it was better than being stuck in the Big East, we all reasoned.

However, it was my understanding that Pitt was insisting on regional travel partners and the thought was the B12 was cool with that plan and was just sorting out whom to add.

The rumor was that Pitt had spoken with West Virginia and Louisville about joining them in the B12 but that both asked Pitt to wait until the SEC had made its decision.

I tended to believe that particular rumor and with how things eventually turned out, I still believe that was Pitt's plan...until the ACC came through with an offer of its own. Once that happened, all bets were off.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"We really had no idea who else they might be talking to or thinking about. In fact, until the night before we kind of had the formal invitation, that was the first time I knew Syracuse was the other school they were talking to.

This is definitely true because when I heard the ACC rumor, the other team joining us was allegedly Rutgers.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
At that point, you were really keeping it pretty close to the vest as far as what might or might not happen because you didn't know what anybody else was doing or thinking. We were trying to do as much as we could in the Big East, we certainly weren't having very much luck getting people on board who were trying to go along to stabilize the league. At that point it became pretty clear to us that we had to evaluate any options that came along, so we really did look at lots of different options.

See the West Virginia/Louisville SEC story. That was definitely happening, IMHO.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
This, from the beginning to me, was the best option. I always felt like, for our league and this institution, being on the eastern seaboard from Boston to Miami, where we recruit, where we get students, where our alums live, it's just a good fit for us. That's kind of already where we live to a large extent. Now, more so in the Northeast than in the Southeast, yet there's a growing number of people from here who live in the Carolinas, they live in Georgia and Florida. It's almost shocking to me how many people come up to me and say, 'Oh we're living down in the Carolinas now, we can't wait until you guys are coming down here for things.'


"We thought they [the ACC] were a little more typical of this institution in a lot of ways. We're not a huge landgrant university with 75,000 students. That's just not what we are. ... We tend to fit more along the lines of Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia."

I'm not familiar enough with the others but I definitely see a lot of commonality between Pitt and Georgia Tech. Each is a highly selective school located in the heart of a city and has to share its market with a very popular state school. Also, each has great football traditions and strong men's basketball programs.

I have long thought of GT and Pitt as long lost cousins and now they will play each other annually. I would not be at all surprised to see that game blossom into something of a rivalry.

Here is another interesting stanza from the blog posting:

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pederson did say that he and Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg did try earnestly to save the Big East, but didn't get enough commitment from other members (some of whom are probably now stuck in the American).


"We tried to keep everybody together and make some longer term commitments, because at that point nobody could guarantee what was going to happen or where you might go," Pederson said. "We were the ones saying, 'Hey, let's lock arms here and sort this out.' But we could never get a full commitment from the people that had to be committed to this to make it happen. We did try, we made a concerted effort to try, but a lot of them just decided that if the options came along, they were going to take them, so they were unwilling to make any long-term commitment to us. Some of those ended up in great places and some of them didn't."

I'm guessing that he is talking about West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers and Connecticut here but I cannot be sure. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

If i recall correctly when expansion first started in 2011 WVU and Rutgers were some of the first teams to reach out to us, we then sent feelers out to Syracuse, UCONN, Pitt and Rutgers. Then Texas and Texas Tech threw a wrench in the plan and there was serious discussions in that plan as well. Villanova was curious if we were interested in them moving up and joining the party. UCONN took serious heat from the get go from several members including a Carolina school and was never really considered past that point. Rutgers fought hard but the belief was that no one else was really interested in them. The plan went down as get two of the four Big East schools... Pitt and Cuse. We see who left for the Pac 12, many assumed it was a foregone conclusion that we would have a Pac 16, if Texas did not go, we would then make a move to add them, but assumptions were they were gone. Next With a floundering Big 12, there was talk of the B1G hopefully taking Kansas and Mizzou, with the Big 12 dead, and the new exit fee the SEC would have to go after a left over Big 12 school or a few of them. Leaving us to pick up the pieces of Rutgers or UCONN THEN make a move for Notre Dame who would have a choice between us or the B1G.

It is crazy to think of the college athletics world would look like if Texhoma group would have left.

Would UCONN have been protested again? Maybe? Would we have taken WVU or Louisville though? I dont think so

(06-13-2013 10:19 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  If i recall correctly when expansion first started in 2011 WVU and Rutgers were some of the first teams to reach out to us, we then sent feelers out to Syracuse, UCONN, Pitt and Rutgers. Then Texas and Texas Tech threw a wrench in the plan and there was serious discussions in that plan as well. Villanova was curious if we were interested in them moving up and joining the party. UCONN took serious heat from the get go from several members including a Carolina school and was never really considered past that point. Rutgers fought hard but the belief was that no one else was really interested in them. The plan went down as get two of the four Big East schools... Pitt and Cuse. We see who left for the Pac 12, many assumed it was a foregone conclusion that we would have a Pac 16, if Texas did not go, we would then make a move to add them, but assumptions were they were gone. Next With a floundering Big 12, there was talk of the B1G hopefully taking Kansas and Mizzou, with the Big 12 dead, and the new exit fee the SEC would have to go after a left over Big 12 school or a few of them. Leaving us to pick up the pieces of Rutgers or UCONN THEN make a move for Notre Dame who would have a choice between us or the B1G.

It is crazy to think of the college athletics world would look like if Texhoma group would have left.

Would UCONN have been protested again? Maybe? Would we have taken WVU or Louisville though? I dont think so

Yep, who knows.

In retrospect, wish we had taken Louisville and WVU along with SU and Pitt so we could have pod scheduling. Maybe MD would have still left, so I guess we'd be stuck with UConn.

But I can't get my head past the fact that pods of four or five fix almost everything schedule wise. It's the only real answer.

And I know at that time Louisville had approached the ACC, SEC, Big 10 and the Big 12. Even before TCU and West Virginia bolted. The writing was on wall. Villanova being added for football was the straw that broke the Big East's back. Adding Boise and SDSU was not going to make it work either. I do think the Big 12 shot itself in the foot bynot taking West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Rutgers and UConn to reach 14 in one fell swoop.

I thank Maryland for saving Louisville's butt from AAC membership. I do think the Big 12 would have added us later, but being in the ACC is sure a better place than out West!

Quote:- Finally, Pederson spoke a little bit about future scheduling. The biggest wrinkle he's dealing with now is how Notre Dame and its ACC rotation fits over the next 10-12 years. Once that's set (which should be soon) he can go about setting other non-conference games. West Virginia came up, and Pederson said he still has discussions with WVU AD Oliver Luck about renewing the Backyard Brawl in some form, but West Virginia's nine-game Big 12 schedule and Pitt's future commitments to Penn State make it somewhat difficult. If I had to predict, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Pitt/West Virginia game at some point in the future, but it probably won't be for at least 10 years and would definitely not be an annual fixture, but probably something like a two-game home-and-home.

(06-13-2013 10:02 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Here are the most interesting tidbits to me:

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
As Pitt gets set to officially enter the ACC next month, Pederson recalled the first time the idea came up. Just as it seemed externally, he said everything fell into place very quickly. His first real conversation with ACC commissioner John Swofford came only about a month before the deal was officially announced in September 2011.


"The first time that it became real for me was the first real conversation John Swofford and I had about this," Pederson said. "To me, that was when it goes from an idea to more the reality of all this. As we had discussion, it became clearer and clearer that there could be a way to get this done if we both were on the same page with what they were looking for and what we were looking for.

I think this demonstrates that these ADs and commissioners are in almost constant contact with each other. Pederson went out of his way to distinguish between informal and formal discussions and I think that's what he is getting at here.

I am not an insider, I'm just some schlub who gives to the program and attends most home and away games. However, even I had heard the rumor that Pitt was talking to the ACC about two weeks before the announcement. I wasn't sure if it was true or not but it was definitely out there. I'm curious if the Syracuse fans were hearing the same thing or if they did a better job of keeping that secret?

After the whole Villanova football debacle, the writing was on the wall that the Big East as we had known it was probably not long for this world and we also knew that being a college program in a decidedly pro sports market like Pittsburgh, we could not afford to be left behind in the remnants of the remnants of the old Big East.

That dog was not going to hunt.

Truthfully, at the time most of us - including me - thought we were headed to the Big 12 and if it had come to that we would have gritted our teeth and dealt with it. Hey, it was better than being stuck in the Big East, we all reasoned.

However, it was my understanding that Pitt was insisting on regional travel partners and the thought was the B12 was cool with that plan and was just sorting out whom to add.

The rumor was that Pitt had spoken with West Virginia and Louisville about joining them in the B12 but that both asked Pitt to wait until the SEC had made its decision.

I tended to believe that particular rumor and with how things eventually turned out, I still believe that was Pitt's plan...until the ACC came through with an offer of its own. Once that happened, all bets were off.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"We really had no idea who else they might be talking to or thinking about. In fact, until the night before we kind of had the formal invitation, that was the first time I knew Syracuse was the other school they were talking to.

This is definitely true because when I heard the ACC rumor, the other team joining us was allegedly Rutgers.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
At that point, you were really keeping it pretty close to the vest as far as what might or might not happen because you didn't know what anybody else was doing or thinking. We were trying to do as much as we could in the Big East, we certainly weren't having very much luck getting people on board who were trying to go along to stabilize the league. At that point it became pretty clear to us that we had to evaluate any options that came along, so we really did look at lots of different options.

See the West Virginia/Louisville SEC story. That was definitely happening, IMHO.

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
This, from the beginning to me, was the best option. I always felt like, for our league and this institution, being on the eastern seaboard from Boston to Miami, where we recruit, where we get students, where our alums live, it's just a good fit for us. That's kind of already where we live to a large extent. Now, more so in the Northeast than in the Southeast, yet there's a growing number of people from here who live in the Carolinas, they live in Georgia and Florida. It's almost shocking to me how many people come up to me and say, 'Oh we're living down in the Carolinas now, we can't wait until you guys are coming down here for things.'


"We thought they [the ACC] were a little more typical of this institution in a lot of ways. We're not a huge landgrant university with 75,000 students. That's just not what we are. ... We tend to fit more along the lines of Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia."

I'm not familiar enough with the others but I definitely see a lot of commonality between Pitt and Georgia Tech. Each is a highly selective school located in the heart of a city and has to share its market with a very popular state school. Also, each has great football traditions and strong men's basketball programs.

I have long thought of GT and Pitt as long lost cousins and now they will play each other annually. I would not be at all surprised to see that game blossom into something of a rivalry.

We know from published reports Pitt sent a letter to the Big East office in May 2010 that it was going to pursue other memberships if the opportunity arose, so the expansion timeline goes back before 2011.

Nordenberg was a big proponent of trying to save the Big East because he (and former WVU President Dave Hardesty) had taken the leadership role in saving the conference following the 2003 raid and had devoted a lot of time and sweat to the cause. Pitt led the issue on expanding with TCU and the Big East used Jamie Dixon as an emissary for that move. I believe Pitt also wanted to expand with UCF but was being blocked by the hoops schools joined with Louisville. Pitt did not lead the charge to turn down the $1 billion ESPN deal as has been incorrectly reported. That was, apparently, actually led by Georgetown although I think Pitt agreed with the reasoning. At the time, Nordenberg was no longer the chair of the BE presidents committee as has been incorrectly reported, but Pitt wielded considerable influence due to its role in the 2003 restructuring, although obviously not enough to overcome expansion issues. Pitt for sure feared the Big East football conference being marginalized and reputation weakening with other conferences growing. These ongoing issues that came to ahead, most notably I believe with the half-azzed Villanova upgrade being pushed over adding UCF, the writing was pretty much on the wall.

It is also around that time, in 2010, that major Big Ten expansion rumors were swirling and included talk of Nebraska, Mizzou, Pitt, Rutgers, SU, Colorado, and even UConn. Major rumors, some (LOL) from WVU sources, heated up about Pitt and the Big Ten. At this time, rumors originating directly from low level Pitt athletic employees indicated that they had seen Jim Delaney touring the Petersen Events Center on Pitt's campus. I don't remember the timing of that but it was around April 2010 so the timing of Pitt's letter to the Big East office indicating a willingness to explore other memberships seems to fit with a belief that Pitt thought itself a serious candidate for Big 10 expansion. Astute readers of public comments form the Pitt AD and administration would have noticed subtle yet significant changes in their answers to questions about the Big East compared to previous years. Gordon Gee's and Gene Smith's recent comments somewhat confirm that Pitt was on a short list with Missouri and Nebraska although it was strongly opposed by Penn State (or more precisely, Joe Paterno). Regardless, the Big Ten opted to go only with UNL.

Around this time, the same low level athletic department contacts indicated that Nordenberg had sent Steve Pederson to Greensboro for talks. My impression is that all the Big East football schools were engaged in similar conversations. For what it is worth, word also came that Joe Jordano, Pitt's baseball coach was pushing for the ACC over the Big Ten. The ACC was certainly preferable to Jamie Dixon as well, though he wanted to stay in the Big East foremost. Point being, there were players in the athletic department that favored the Big Ten, and others that favored the ACC, but Pitt wasn't going to likely take which ever invite came first. It is certainly easy to justify why the ACC is the better fit (ignoring the attractiveness of the B10 money) both institutionally and geographically, as Pederson mentions in his interview.

But a year later, when the B12 fell apart, Pitt was again on another conference's short list. This was publicly stated by several real journalistic sources in print, and I think also quoted by DeLoss Dodds. And I believe Yinzer is dead on, Pitt knew it needed to move, but didn't want to go to a crumbling B12 without some regional partners. Pitt for sure tried to get WVU interested but WVU believed it has a shot at the SEC which it had been wooing for a long time. It is my belief that these machinations by the Pac-10, Big 12, and others spurred the ACC to action. It happened very quickly, but I think there were informal high level contacts going on between the ACC and Big East football schools for over a year prior. Now, as Yinzer has pointed out, there is a distinction between formal and informal contacts, and the formal contacts involving direct talks about membership with John Swofford were probably sudden as the ACC was strategizing its place in the midsts of the B12 implosion and Pac-12 superconference. It was also publicly stated, I believe, that Pitt tried to "recommend" WVU and Rutgers to the ACC, so it is probably correct that Pitt didn't know who else was a real candidate for ACC membership.

Interesting read, thanks.

(06-13-2013 10:03 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Here is another interesting stanza from the blog posting:

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pederson did say that he and Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg did try earnestly to save the Big East, but didn't get enough commitment from other members (some of whom are probably now stuck in the American).


"We tried to keep everybody together and make some longer term commitments, because at that point nobody could guarantee what was going to happen or where you might go," Pederson said. "We were the ones saying, 'Hey, let's lock arms here and sort this out.' But we could never get a full commitment from the people that had to be committed to this to make it happen. We did try, we made a concerted effort to try, but a lot of them just decided that if the options came along, they were going to take them, so they were unwilling to make any long-term commitment to us. Some of those ended up in great places and some of them didn't."

I'm guessing that he is talking about West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers and Connecticut here but I cannot be sure. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

They were all known to be looking around and by the end trust had broken down. SU was the only one that sort of sat back, or at least no noise was coming from their camp except for a public comment, I believe, when Daryl Gross was first hired, about how they would strive for a more appropriate conference, or some such comment, so they were probably looking too.

While I'm sure the Big Ten probably studied Pitt along with a lot of others, I didn't read Gee's comments the same way. They are big enough and close enough that people ask about them, but the value Pitt would bring to the Big Ten was far less than to any other conference (given Penn State) and it seems to me the answer was a pretty quick no.

Now, both the Big 12 and ACC I see in opposite spots where Pitt was a central piece of expansion. If the ACC hadn't taken Pitt, my guess is the Big 12 would have gone for a northeast strategy and taken Pitt, West Virginia, and Rutgers or Syracuse getting back up to 12 (trying to add markets as the Big 12 has fewer than any other major conference while also taking some of the bigger name Big East teams). Without Pitt and Syracuse though, a full bridge just didn't make enough sense and the question came down to Louisville or West Virginia. Both together might have been possible, but to make it work they needed a 3rd of equal value and Cincinnati just wasn't viewed as bringing enough (and by then the round robin approach was looking better).

(06-13-2013 01:43 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Big Ten probably studied Pitt along with a lot of others, I didn't read Gee's comments the same way. They are big enough and close enough that people ask about them, but the value Pitt would bring to the Big Ten was far less than to any other conference (given Penn State) and it seems to me the answer was a pretty quick no.

Now, both the Big 12 and ACC I see in opposite spots where Pitt was a central piece of expansion. If the ACC hadn't taken Pitt, my guess is the Big 12 would have gone for a northeast strategy and taken Pitt, West Virginia, and Rutgers or Syracuse getting back up to 12 (trying to add markets as the Big 12 has fewer than any other major conference while also taking some of the bigger name Big East teams). Without Pitt and Syracuse though, a full bridge just didn't make enough sense and the question came down to Louisville or West Virginia. Both together might have been possible, but to make it work they needed a 3rd of equal value and Cincinnati just wasn't viewed as bringing enough (and by then the round robin approach was looking better).

Obviously the Big Ten decided not to take Pitt or Mizzou at the time, but they were seriously studied along with Mizzou and UNL, and apparently, serious conversations were taking place. From the Big Ten's perspective, it may have been a ploy to shake Notre Dame loose, but what casual fans think of Pitt's value to the Big Ten is also not really necessarily informed or accurate. The Big Ten does not own Pennsylvania they way that most assume and Pitt's national ratings are surprisingly high to those unfamiliar with the program. The Pitt-Penn State game, prior to the 90s when it was dropped out of spite, had the cache of Michigan-Ohio State but one that was actually meaningful to the East.

As far as Gee's comments, you should listen to the audio. Gee is talking about UNL's addition and brings up Mizzou being on the short list, and Gene Smith is heard in the background chiming up, unprompted, that Pitt was too. Gee then confirms that Pitt was on the short list which leads him to talk about how PSU abhorred Pitt. These comments fit with other things heard back in 2010. Pitt was also considered for the Big Ten in the late 80s when Penn State joined, and came extremely close to joining the Big 10 in the 1940s and actually went to the lengths of placing its athletics program under Big 10 supervision (with severe recruiting restrictions) and played an almost full Big 10 schedule. In fact, it was OSU that objected to Pitt as Chicago's replacement (for fear of recruiting overlap in Ohio) and is ultimately what got MSU in.

(06-13-2013 01:43 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Big Ten probably studied Pitt along with a lot of others, I didn't read Gee's comments the same way. They are big enough and close enough that people ask about them, but the value Pitt would bring to the Big Ten was far less than to any other conference (given Penn State) and it seems to me the answer was a pretty quick no.

Now, both the Big 12 and ACC I see in opposite spots where Pitt was a central piece of expansion. If the ACC hadn't taken Pitt, my guess is the Big 12 would have gone for a northeast strategy and taken Pitt, West Virginia, and Rutgers or Syracuse getting back up to 12 (trying to add markets as the Big 12 has fewer than any other major conference while also taking some of the bigger name Big East teams). Without Pitt and Syracuse though, a full bridge just didn't make enough sense and the question came down to Louisville or West Virginia. Both together might have been possible, but to make it work they needed a 3rd of equal value and Cincinnati just wasn't viewed as bringing enough (and by then the round robin approach was looking better).

Well this is a gratuitous and unsupported "comment". Precisely what one would expect from the cretins associated with Ohio $tate University-Columbus. Cincinnati is a larger university than Pitt, has the same or similar academic profile, comparable university endowments, similar prominent medical schools and university hospital complexes, the same or better basketball tradition (2 national championships to none; 6 Final Four appearances to none) and has enjoyed considerably more recent success than Pitt in football (Cincy has been in the Final Top 25 poll in 5 of the past 6 seasons). Will concede that Pitt has had a more illustrious football heritage, but Pitt has not been relevant in national football discussions or in the Big East for a decade or more.

(06-13-2013 06:44 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 01:43 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Big Ten probably studied Pitt along with a lot of others, I didn't read Gee's comments the same way. They are big enough and close enough that people ask about them, but the value Pitt would bring to the Big Ten was far less than to any other conference (given Penn State) and it seems to me the answer was a pretty quick no.

Now, both the Big 12 and ACC I see in opposite spots where Pitt was a central piece of expansion. If the ACC hadn't taken Pitt, my guess is the Big 12 would have gone for a northeast strategy and taken Pitt, West Virginia, and Rutgers or Syracuse getting back up to 12 (trying to add markets as the Big 12 has fewer than any other major conference while also taking some of the bigger name Big East teams). Without Pitt and Syracuse though, a full bridge just didn't make enough sense and the question came down to Louisville or West Virginia. Both together might have been possible, but to make it work they needed a 3rd of equal value and Cincinnati just wasn't viewed as bringing enough (and by then the round robin approach was looking better).

Well this is a gratuitous and unsupported "comment". Precisely what one would expect from the cretins associated with Ohio $tate University-Columbus. Cincinnati is a larger university than Pitt, has the same or similar academic profile, comparable university endowments, similar prominent medical schools and university hospital complexes, the same or better basketball tradition (2 national championships to none; 6 Final Four appearances to none) and has enjoyed considerably more recent success than Pitt in football (Cincy has been in the Final Top 25 poll in 5 of the past 6 seasons). Will concede that Pitt has had a more illustrious football heritage, but Pitt has not been relevant in national football discussions or in the Big East for a decade or more.

Couldnt you say the same for Cinci basketball? Pitt actually represented the BE in a bcs game back in 2005. Pitt has also ended the season ranked a couple of times in the last 4 or 5 years.
And If I'm not mistaken, I think Pitt has like a $3 billion endowment. The last time the school endowments were posted on this board, I dont think Cinci was close to that.

(06-13-2013 06:44 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 01:43 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Big Ten probably studied Pitt along with a lot of others, I didn't read Gee's comments the same way. They are big enough and close enough that people ask about them, but the value Pitt would bring to the Big Ten was far less than to any other conference (given Penn State) and it seems to me the answer was a pretty quick no.

Now, both the Big 12 and ACC I see in opposite spots where Pitt was a central piece of expansion. If the ACC hadn't taken Pitt, my guess is the Big 12 would have gone for a northeast strategy and taken Pitt, West Virginia, and Rutgers or Syracuse getting back up to 12 (trying to add markets as the Big 12 has fewer than any other major conference while also taking some of the bigger name Big East teams). Without Pitt and Syracuse though, a full bridge just didn't make enough sense and the question came down to Louisville or West Virginia. Both together might have been possible, but to make it work they needed a 3rd of equal value and Cincinnati just wasn't viewed as bringing enough (and by then the round robin approach was looking better).

Well this is a gratuitous and unsupported "comment". Precisely what one would expect from the cretins associated with Ohio $tate University-Columbus. Cincinnati is a larger university than Pitt, has the same or similar academic profile, comparable university endowments, similar prominent medical schools and university hospital complexes, the same or better basketball tradition (2 national championships to none; 6 Final Four appearances to none) and has enjoyed considerably more recent success than Pitt in football (Cincy has been in the Final Top 25 poll in 5 of the past 6 seasons). Will concede that Pitt has had a more illustrious football heritage, but Pitt has not been relevant in national football discussions or in the Big East for a decade or more.

Get real, and stop pimping your school on the ACC boards. Go to the expansion forum to do that. Thanks.

I was responding to an (inane) comment from a fan of Ohio $tate. What is he doing on an ACC board?

(06-14-2013 03:04 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  I was responding to an (inane) comment from a fan of Ohio $tate. What is he doing on an ACC board?

Well, most of your statements about how UC is comparable to Pitt are dead wrong.

(06-14-2013 03:04 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  I was responding to an (inane) comment from a fan of Ohio $tate. What is he doing on an ACC board?

He's posting on the ACC board as a decent guest, unlike you whose goal was to be insulting.

(06-14-2013 03:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 03:04 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  I was responding to an (inane) comment from a fan of Ohio $tate. What is he doing on an ACC board?

Well, most of your statements about how UC is comparable to Pitt are dead wrong.

Excuse me? How are the University of Cincinnati and the University of Pittsburgh not comparable? Both major public universities in major cities. Both viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the #2 universities in their respective states. Both with nationally recognized medical schools and university medical centers. Both with excellent law schools and engineering schools. Don't know about Pitt's architecture school or music school, but you might want to check out Cincinnati's national reputation in each (top 3 in each). Both playing intercollegiate football since the 19th century. Cincy and Pitt split 8 football games since Cincy joined the Big East in 2005, with UC winning 4 of the last 5. I could go on. What is the basis for the arrogance on your part? Do you think Pitt is superior because your school has been admitted to the ACC? Then how do you explain Louisville? Are they comparable to Pitt?

U.S. News and world report : National University Rankings - ACC

#8 Duke
#17 Notre Dame
#24 UVA
#27 Wake Forest
#30 UNC-Chapel hill
#31 Boston College
#36 Georgia Tech
#44 Miami
#58 Syracuse
#58 Maryland
#58 Pittsburgh
#68 Clemson
#72 Virginia Tech
#97 Florida State - moved into the top 100. Yeah!
#106 N.C. State - (who drops every year)
#160 Louisville

You look at that and wonder how Louisville got in over UConn? Had to be the influence of FSU, Clemson and other football schools. Maybe we deserve the ribbing we got from the OSU president. (Still glad to have Louisville over UConn.)

Expansion targets rankings
#63 Connecticut
#125 Temple
#139 Cincinnati
#165 West Virginia
#170 South Florida
#174 Central Florida
#199 East Carolina
Rankings stop at 199

I don't see how anyone can compare Pitt as equal to Cincy with a straight face. And if the ACC will now take Louisville, why not WVU? They're not that far behind Louisville and have much more football cred than any other expansion target.