(07-31-2018 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

The conference championship game and the loophole in some old NCAA bylaws which allowed for having two divisions thereby permitting a conference championship game was the brain child of Roy Kramer and had nothing to do with the Big 10.

The Big 10 did kind of kick off the realignment craze by adding then independent Penn State.

Then the ACC added Florida State (independent) followed shortly thereafter by the SEC adding Arkansas (SWC) and South Carolina (which was also independent).

12/15/89 Penn State joins the Big Ten
2/6/90 Notre Dame signs a five year television deal with NBC
8/1/90 Arkansas joins the SEC
9/13/90 Florida State joins the ACC, turning down an offer from the SEC
9/25/90 South Carolina joins the SEC
10/10/90 Miami joins the Big East
12/13/90 The Big East Football Conference is formed
(Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech join for football only)

Thanks, but only missing by a month after 28 years and doing it from memory is close enough for an old guy. Of course most of those schools didn't start playing in their new conferences until '92.

But I believe the primary point was that the Big 10 got her kicked of back then.

I wasn't trying to correct you, just get more specific. You are absolutely correct that Big Ten got it started back in 1989-90, just as they did in 2009 when they announced they were going to explore expansion. Also, just like the 2009-13 realignment process, it was all driven by the need for each conference to increase the value of their TV product, including bowl game tie ins. Some things never change!

(08-14-2018 11:07 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

The conference championship game and the loophole in some old NCAA bylaws which allowed for having two divisions thereby permitting a conference championship game was the brain child of Roy Kramer and had nothing to do with the Big 10.

The Big 10 did kind of kick off the realignment craze by adding then independent Penn State.

Then the ACC added Florida State (independent) followed shortly thereafter by the SEC adding Arkansas (SWC) and South Carolina (which was also independent).

12/15/89 Penn State joins the Big Ten
2/6/90 Notre Dame signs a five year television deal with NBC
8/1/90 Arkansas joins the SEC
9/13/90 Florida State joins the ACC, turning down an offer from the SEC
9/25/90 South Carolina joins the SEC
10/10/90 Miami joins the Big East
12/13/90 The Big East Football Conference is formed
(Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech join for football only)

Thanks, but only missing by a month after 28 years and doing it from memory is close enough for an old guy. Of course most of those schools didn't start playing in their new conferences until '92.

But I believe the primary point was that the Big 10 got her kicked of back then.

I wasn't trying to correct you, just get more specific. You are absolutely correct that Big Ten got it started back in 1989-90, just as they did in 2009 when they announced they were going to explore expansion. Also, just like the 2009-13 realignment process, it was all driven by the need for each conference to increase the value of their TV product, including bowl game tie ins. Some things never change!

That's very true Neil, but sometimes we forget who created the need and the opportunity to meet it. Networks. Now the trick will be to see who dangles the lure next time because it might be a new player.

Well, well, well.....With football starting in less than a week---it looks like both sides got serious about getting a deal done.

Big Ten Network
‏
Verified account

@BigTenNetwork
Follow Follow @BigTenNetwork
More
We’re pleased to have reached an agreement with Comcast, ensuring fans enjoy BTN and the Big Ten on FS1. Thanks for your support – here’s to a great season!

(08-24-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well, well, well.....With football starting in less than a week---it looks like both sides got serious about a getting a deal done.

Big Ten Network
‏
Verified account

@BigTenNetwork
Follow Follow @BigTenNetwork
More
We’re pleased to have reached an agreement with Comcast, ensuring fans enjoy BTN and the Big Ten on FS1. Thanks for your support – here’s to a great season!

Well I am shocked they got a deal done right before the start of the season, said no one.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/10...61120?s=19

(08-01-2018 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 06:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most of those you are naming wouldn't move the ACC's needle. What is it that the ACC is in need of? More markets? Or, Content?

We are about to move out of a market driven world of college sports and into a content driven model of college sports. Actual eyeballs are what's going to matter the most. So having competitive additions, preferably ones with some branding will be what you need.

I suggest that you re-survey both the P5 and the top of the G5 with content in mind.

BTW, batteries, thuggery, and arson aside, West Virginia looks pretty good for adding content value to baseball, basketball, and most importantly football. Plus their average attendance is higher than that of the ACC. Their gross total revenue figures would rank 3rd or 4th in the ACC, and they have great animosity for you which will raise viewer interest, and I'm not joking on this one. They'll make everyone in the ACC more money.

I'm not sure any of the others mentioned would.

In my post I was strictly going on recruiting areas, not TV markets or content... but I agree with you, if/when the ACC expands again it MUST be for content. That said, I also agree that WVU is a no-brainer.

Beyond the 'Eers you have Notre Dame (obviously), but they may be in as far as they're going to come for now.

It's really not all that far from Tallahassee to Dallas/Fort Worth so... hello, TCU?

If the ACC had West Virginia then they wouldn't need Pitt.
Add West Virginia and trade Pitt to the B1G to get Maryland back?

TCU is only viable to the ACC as a travel partner for Texas (even if the 'Horns are only a partial).

It seems like you are still thinking MARKET... that model is dying. If market were what mattered, Cincinnati (in the populous state of Ohio) would be a shoe-in -- but it isn't.

The new model is CONTENT (i.e. games that non-ACC fans will actually tune it to watch). People may not tune in to see WVU vs. Kansas State and they may not tune in to watch Pitt vs. UNC either, but they WILL tune in to watch Pitt vs. WVU (as well as VT vs. WVU, Syracuse vs. WVU, BC vs. WVU, etc.). That is why WVU is valuable to the ACC - lots of ACC teams have dormant rivalries with them that could easily be reawakened. That gets ratings, which gets tv money.

If the ACC expands again, it needs to add FOOTBALL RIVALRIES as much as possible. That's what makes Notre Dame (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, GT, Miami) and WVU (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, VT) so valuable to the conference.

Are you nuts?
Why would it matter that the 1.8 million folks in West Virginia wanted to watch WVU VS Syracuse when the 6 million folks in Maryland could see their flagship University. Who is to say that the content value of West Virginia is higher than Maryland? It is your perception that West Virginia has more content value, but how can that be measured? As long as there are conference networks, marketed by ESPN and sold wholesale through cable systems, the market model is still relevant. All of the that has been written about "content" is just that. The SEC is being paid on the market model through the end of their distribution contracts, when they start getting paid only on content, their revenues will plummet, because not everyone outside of their "market" will continue to pay $.25 a month and not everyone within their market will want to pay $1.35 for something they don't or won't watch.
Even casual fans may balk at having to spend $10-$20 per month for a SEC subscription, and at some point Alabama might not want to share equally with football lightweight Vanderbilt.

When it comes to FB more folks are tuning into WVU than UNC. Also WVU is made up of kids from NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC suburbs so it's more than just the residents of WV that you would be getting to tune in. If the good schools of NC could actually field decent teams the ACC wouldn't desperately need quality FB programs like WVU.

(08-26-2018 11:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 06:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my post I was strictly going on recruiting areas, not TV markets or content... but I agree with you, if/when the ACC expands again it MUST be for content. That said, I also agree that WVU is a no-brainer.

Beyond the 'Eers you have Notre Dame (obviously), but they may be in as far as they're going to come for now.

It's really not all that far from Tallahassee to Dallas/Fort Worth so... hello, TCU?

If the ACC had West Virginia then they wouldn't need Pitt.
Add West Virginia and trade Pitt to the B1G to get Maryland back?

TCU is only viable to the ACC as a travel partner for Texas (even if the 'Horns are only a partial).

It seems like you are still thinking MARKET... that model is dying. If market were what mattered, Cincinnati (in the populous state of Ohio) would be a shoe-in -- but it isn't.

The new model is CONTENT (i.e. games that non-ACC fans will actually tune it to watch). People may not tune in to see WVU vs. Kansas State and they may not tune in to watch Pitt vs. UNC either, but they WILL tune in to watch Pitt vs. WVU (as well as VT vs. WVU, Syracuse vs. WVU, BC vs. WVU, etc.). That is why WVU is valuable to the ACC - lots of ACC teams have dormant rivalries with them that could easily be reawakened. That gets ratings, which gets tv money.

If the ACC expands again, it needs to add FOOTBALL RIVALRIES as much as possible. That's what makes Notre Dame (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, GT, Miami) and WVU (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, VT) so valuable to the conference.

Are you nuts?
Why would it matter that the 1.8 million folks in West Virginia wanted to watch WVU VS Syracuse when the 6 million folks in Maryland could see their flagship University. Who is to say that the content value of West Virginia is higher than Maryland? It is your perception that West Virginia has more content value, but how can that be measured? As long as there are conference networks, marketed by ESPN and sold wholesale through cable systems, the market model is still relevant. All of the that has been written about "content" is just that. The SEC is being paid on the market model through the end of their distribution contracts, when they start getting paid only on content, their revenues will plummet, because not everyone outside of their "market" will continue to pay $.25 a month and not everyone within their market will want to pay $1.35 for something they don't or won't watch.
Even casual fans may balk at having to spend $10-$20 per month for a SEC subscription, and at some point Alabama might not want to share equally with football lightweight Vanderbilt.

When it comes to FB more folks are tuning into WVU than UNC. Also WVU is made up of kids from NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC suburbs so it's more than just the residents of WV that you would be getting to tune in. If the good schools of NC could actually field decent teams the ACC wouldn't desperately need quality FB programs like WVU.

WVU has no significant presence in those cities, especially NYC and Philly, and receives absolutely no local coverage. There were only 173 total students from the entire state of New York in last fall's WVU freshman class. Most Pennsylvania students come from the western half of the state, not Philly. I can't even remember the last time I saw WVU covered on the local sports news in DC, probably because it has never happened unless they are actually playing a local team: Georgetown, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVA, Navy, George Washington, or American.

More people will turn into WVU than UNC today because WVU has had a more consitently competitive football program that has been nationally ranked in recent years, not because of some inherent greater interest in Mountaineer football over Tar Heel football.

(08-26-2018 01:03 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 11:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the ACC had West Virginia then they wouldn't need Pitt.
Add West Virginia and trade Pitt to the B1G to get Maryland back?

TCU is only viable to the ACC as a travel partner for Texas (even if the 'Horns are only a partial).

It seems like you are still thinking MARKET... that model is dying. If market were what mattered, Cincinnati (in the populous state of Ohio) would be a shoe-in -- but it isn't.

The new model is CONTENT (i.e. games that non-ACC fans will actually tune it to watch). People may not tune in to see WVU vs. Kansas State and they may not tune in to watch Pitt vs. UNC either, but they WILL tune in to watch Pitt vs. WVU (as well as VT vs. WVU, Syracuse vs. WVU, BC vs. WVU, etc.). That is why WVU is valuable to the ACC - lots of ACC teams have dormant rivalries with them that could easily be reawakened. That gets ratings, which gets tv money.

If the ACC expands again, it needs to add FOOTBALL RIVALRIES as much as possible. That's what makes Notre Dame (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, GT, Miami) and WVU (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, VT) so valuable to the conference.

Are you nuts?
Why would it matter that the 1.8 million folks in West Virginia wanted to watch WVU VS Syracuse when the 6 million folks in Maryland could see their flagship University. Who is to say that the content value of West Virginia is higher than Maryland? It is your perception that West Virginia has more content value, but how can that be measured? As long as there are conference networks, marketed by ESPN and sold wholesale through cable systems, the market model is still relevant. All of the that has been written about "content" is just that. The SEC is being paid on the market model through the end of their distribution contracts, when they start getting paid only on content, their revenues will plummet, because not everyone outside of their "market" will continue to pay $.25 a month and not everyone within their market will want to pay $1.35 for something they don't or won't watch.
Even casual fans may balk at having to spend $10-$20 per month for a SEC subscription, and at some point Alabama might not want to share equally with football lightweight Vanderbilt.

When it comes to FB more folks are tuning into WVU than UNC. Also WVU is made up of kids from NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC suburbs so it's more than just the residents of WV that you would be getting to tune in. If the good schools of NC could actually field decent teams the ACC wouldn't desperately need quality FB programs like WVU.

WVU has no significant presence in those cities, especially NYC and Philly, and receives absolutely no local coverage. There were only 173 total students from the entire state of New York in last fall's WVU freshman class. Most Pennsylvania students come from the western half of the state, not Philly. I can't even remember the last time I saw WVU covered on the local sports news in DC, probably because it has never happened unless they are actually playing a local team: Georgetown, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVA, Navy, George Washington, or American.

More people will turn into WVU than UNC today because WVU has had a more consitently competitive football program that has been nationally ranked in recent years, not because of some inherent greater interest in Mountaineer football over Tar Heel football.

I never said they get local coverage, just like all those B1G fans in NYC yet their teams don't get covered on the local news. My brother went to WVU and there were a dozen NY kids in his frat alone. Most Penn students are from western PA? You sure about that? How about all the NJ kids?

Like I said my brother went there and told me himself that it's mostly kids from the I-95 suburbs.

There is an inherent greater interest because WVU has always been a better FB program and has played at a higher level for a longer time.

The ACC has neither interest, in nor any need for, WVU. While I enjoyed seeing the ‘Eers beat the living sh!t out of Clemson a few years back, they have been rejected multiple times and wouldn’t get in right now if the Big XII imploded. Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami and Florida State are already significantly better programs without the demographic and cultural incongruities and Pitt already covers the same media markets that WVU would bring. Likewise, we have all seen how slumming it with another athletic first (read: only) ‘school’ in Louisville has turned out for the conference.

West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football. Basketball has been good in the Big XII and football competition is way better in the Big XII with like minded institutions. I kind of get why some ACC fans look down on WVU but that BS went away the day the ACC invited Louisville.

(08-26-2018 05:40 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 01:03 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 11:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It seems like you are still thinking MARKET... that model is dying. If market were what mattered, Cincinnati (in the populous state of Ohio) would be a shoe-in -- but it isn't.

The new model is CONTENT (i.e. games that non-ACC fans will actually tune it to watch). People may not tune in to see WVU vs. Kansas State and they may not tune in to watch Pitt vs. UNC either, but they WILL tune in to watch Pitt vs. WVU (as well as VT vs. WVU, Syracuse vs. WVU, BC vs. WVU, etc.). That is why WVU is valuable to the ACC - lots of ACC teams have dormant rivalries with them that could easily be reawakened. That gets ratings, which gets tv money.

If the ACC expands again, it needs to add FOOTBALL RIVALRIES as much as possible. That's what makes Notre Dame (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, GT, Miami) and WVU (BC, 'Cuse, Pitt, VT) so valuable to the conference.

Are you nuts?
Why would it matter that the 1.8 million folks in West Virginia wanted to watch WVU VS Syracuse when the 6 million folks in Maryland could see their flagship University. Who is to say that the content value of West Virginia is higher than Maryland? It is your perception that West Virginia has more content value, but how can that be measured? As long as there are conference networks, marketed by ESPN and sold wholesale through cable systems, the market model is still relevant. All of the that has been written about "content" is just that. The SEC is being paid on the market model through the end of their distribution contracts, when they start getting paid only on content, their revenues will plummet, because not everyone outside of their "market" will continue to pay $.25 a month and not everyone within their market will want to pay $1.35 for something they don't or won't watch.
Even casual fans may balk at having to spend $10-$20 per month for a SEC subscription, and at some point Alabama might not want to share equally with football lightweight Vanderbilt.

When it comes to FB more folks are tuning into WVU than UNC. Also WVU is made up of kids from NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC suburbs so it's more than just the residents of WV that you would be getting to tune in. If the good schools of NC could actually field decent teams the ACC wouldn't desperately need quality FB programs like WVU.

WVU has no significant presence in those cities, especially NYC and Philly, and receives absolutely no local coverage. There were only 173 total students from the entire state of New York in last fall's WVU freshman class. Most Pennsylvania students come from the western half of the state, not Philly. I can't even remember the last time I saw WVU covered on the local sports news in DC, probably because it has never happened unless they are actually playing a local team: Georgetown, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVA, Navy, George Washington, or American.

More people will turn into WVU than UNC today because WVU has had a more consitently competitive football program that has been nationally ranked in recent years, not because of some inherent greater interest in Mountaineer football over Tar Heel football.

I never said they get local coverage, just like all those B1G fans in NYC yet their teams don't get covered on the local news. My brother went to WVU and there were a dozen NY kids in his frat alone. Most Penn students are from western PA? You sure about that? How about all the NJ kids?

Like I said my brother went there and told me himself that it's mostly kids from the I-95 suburbs.

There is an inherent greater interest because WVU has always been a better FB program and has played at a higher level for a longer time.

I have a coworker who’s from Yonkers, NY and graduated from WVU. She says WVU gets a lot of out of state students, especially from Pittsburgh and the Boston-Washington corridor.

(08-26-2018 06:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 05:40 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 01:03 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 11:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  Are you nuts?
Why would it matter that the 1.8 million folks in West Virginia wanted to watch WVU VS Syracuse when the 6 million folks in Maryland could see their flagship University. Who is to say that the content value of West Virginia is higher than Maryland? It is your perception that West Virginia has more content value, but how can that be measured? As long as there are conference networks, marketed by ESPN and sold wholesale through cable systems, the market model is still relevant. All of the that has been written about "content" is just that. The SEC is being paid on the market model through the end of their distribution contracts, when they start getting paid only on content, their revenues will plummet, because not everyone outside of their "market" will continue to pay $.25 a month and not everyone within their market will want to pay $1.35 for something they don't or won't watch.
Even casual fans may balk at having to spend $10-$20 per month for a SEC subscription, and at some point Alabama might not want to share equally with football lightweight Vanderbilt.

When it comes to FB more folks are tuning into WVU than UNC. Also WVU is made up of kids from NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC suburbs so it's more than just the residents of WV that you would be getting to tune in. If the good schools of NC could actually field decent teams the ACC wouldn't desperately need quality FB programs like WVU.

WVU has no significant presence in those cities, especially NYC and Philly, and receives absolutely no local coverage. There were only 173 total students from the entire state of New York in last fall's WVU freshman class. Most Pennsylvania students come from the western half of the state, not Philly. I can't even remember the last time I saw WVU covered on the local sports news in DC, probably because it has never happened unless they are actually playing a local team: Georgetown, Maryland, Virginia Tech, UVA, Navy, George Washington, or American.

More people will turn into WVU than UNC today because WVU has had a more consitently competitive football program that has been nationally ranked in recent years, not because of some inherent greater interest in Mountaineer football over Tar Heel football.

I never said they get local coverage, just like all those B1G fans in NYC yet their teams don't get covered on the local news. My brother went to WVU and there were a dozen NY kids in his frat alone. Most Penn students are from western PA? You sure about that? How about all the NJ kids?

Like I said my brother went there and told me himself that it's mostly kids from the I-95 suburbs.

There is an inherent greater interest because WVU has always been a better FB program and has played at a higher level for a longer time.

I have a coworker who’s from Yonkers, NY and graduated from WVU. She says WVU gets a lot of out of state students, especially from Pittsburgh and the Boston-Washington corridor.

WVU does get a lot of out-of-state students; something like 43% are out-of-state. It has extremely competitive out-of-state tuition compared with other states and very low admission standards. And it has a tuition reciprocity program with Ohio and I believe something with Maryland as well. It does get a lot of kids from Western PA, and this not meant to be a slam, but they're typically ones that can't get into Pitt or PSU. By far WVU gets the most out-of-state students from PA, primarily Western/Central PA. Although I've never heard of anyone going there from the eastern part of the state even though I lived in Philly for a time and have family in eastern PA, I'm sure some do go.

But the implication that drawing a couple hundred kids from a state, and that's what we are talking about, a couple hundred a year, turns gives a school's athletic teams some sort of market penetration for football viewership is ludicrous. The only real penetration WVU has is into Western PA and Pittsburgh, because of proximity to Morgantown, where it is the 3rd or 4th college team depending on the sport, and that is also behind 3 professional teams, but it does get some local coverage. For the sake of comparison, I know last year that Pitt, compared to WVU, had over 940 more total students (greater than 50% more than WVU) from NY and NJ, almost 2X as many from DC, and heck of a lot more than that from Philly/eastern PA, and no one is claiming NYC, DC or Philly as a Pitt city where it could carry a network into those areas.

(08-26-2018 06:41 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football. Basketball has been good in the Big XII and football competition is way better in the Big XII with like minded institutions. I kind of get why some ACC fans look down on WVU but that BS went away the day the ACC invited Louisville.

UNC's last conference title was 1979. WVU won 3 BCS bowls in the Big East, including wins over UGA, OU and Clemson. WVU is FAR ahead of Carolina in football. And they do have a significant presence in DC. They have improved the coverage of the Big 12 in that part of the country (according to a Longhorn in the TV industry who lives in DC and posted regularly on the Texas boards-and yes he posted long before WVU joined the Big 12).

WVU may have been voted down when it only had 9 teams and Duke, Virginia, UNC and Ga Tech constituted 44% of the membership... but now that there are 15 ACC schools, those schools represent only 27% whereas former Big East schools are now 47% of the votes. Just sayin...

(08-28-2018 10:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  WVU may have been voted down when it only had 9 teams and Duke, Virginia, UNC and Ga Tech constituted 44% of the membership... but now that there are 15 ACC schools, those schools represent only 27% whereas former Big East schools are now 47% of the votes. Just sayin...

Worked out well for VPI. With UNC and Duke anti-expansion, UVA effectively became a block.

The ACC dynamic is intriguing to me. The Hokies were a great addition and to me an OBVIOUS choice.

ACC and Sun Belt were on the same side of two of the big BCS debates. (ie. creating the BCS Title Game, called the Waters plan by some, that had double hosting) and my still preferred CFP plan of 1-4 playing in the playoff and 5-24 being seeded into 10 bowl games with a nod to historic bowl ties, geography and interesting match-ups, ACC and Sun Belt were the only ones to vote for that.

I am biased because when we were the shittiest team in FBS Beamer did his best to keep the score down though I resent you taking away our status of playing in the only FBS 0-0 game since OT was adopted.

(08-26-2018 06:41 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football.

I'd say that WVU was highly relevant in football while in the Big East. Since joining the Big 12, their relevance has declined significantly, arguably dramatically. They are just a run of the mill football program these days.

As for markets, yes, WVU does have a presence in the Virginia side of the DC area, lots of WVU alumni head to the DC area to work. Problem is, VT and UVA have that same presence, so from an ACC point of view, WVU isn't needed for that.

(07-26-2018 03:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 04:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 02:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 01:51 PM)YNot Wrote:  I'm sure the B1G has enjoyed non-TV benefits by having Penn St., Ohio St. and Michigan play in New Jersey and Maryland. What are they and what value do they provide to the conference and its legacy members?

Recruiting gains. But the legacy members aren’t playing every year any more. How did BYU like getting split off from AF, Wyoming and Colorado St? They hated it so much that 2 years later they created the MWC.

Rutgers and Maryland look about as solid now as rust peeking through the bondo!

Hahahahaha

But In all seriousness they are good. Unless the Big 10 originals pull a WAC 16 and form their own conference minus Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Purdue or Northwestern. As a native Iowan with Hawkeye blood in me, that’s the 9 team conference I want:
The New Big 10-1= Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St
Nebraska can rejoin the Big 12. The other 4 can join the new northern wing of the AAC with UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Navy.

Love the butthurt AAC members who just hate the fact Rutgers is in the B1G. Why would the B1G members pull a WAC when they voted for these schools to get in? One silly dispute with Comcast isn't going to get the most stable conference into full on meltdown mode. NOw if this happened to the AAC you'd see teams applying to the MAC and CUSA by now. hahahaha

We'd be butthurt if Rutgers wasn't a bottom dwellin joke. At least in the AAC you guys would be able to finish above ECU and Tulane.

(07-26-2018 03:12 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 02:14 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

As state funding as diminished, many of the Big 10 schools have increased their acceptance of out-of-state students. At Michigan, for example, 49 percent of the 2016 freshman class was comprised of out-of-state students. Penn State is at 43 percent. Both Indiana and Wisconsin are at 43 percent. It could be that many of these Big 10 alums are just returning home, which happens to be outside the traditional boundaries of the Big 10.

Regarding MD and NJ, neither state has a prestigious back-up state school. So that forces may HS grads of these 2 states to look out-of-state.

Also there is no financial incentive to stay in state in NJ since you pay almost the same as out of state.

This is actually true. I'm from Jersey and was choosing between Temple and Rutgers. Temple was a little bit more as an out of state student, but no way was I gonna pick Rutgers over TU if the cost difference wasn't significant after visiting both campuses.

(08-29-2018 07:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:41 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football.

I'd say that WVU was highly relevant in football while in the Big East. Since joining the Big 12, their relevance has declined significantly, arguably dramatically. They are just a run of the mill football program these days.

As for markets, yes, WVU does have a presence in the Virginia side of the DC area, lots of WVU alumni head to the DC area to work. Problem is, VT and UVA have that same presence, so from an ACC point of view, WVU isn't needed for that.

They’re still more relevant nationally than Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Louisville, the schools that got their golden ticket out of the Big East.

(08-29-2018 05:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:41 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football.

I'd say that WVU was highly relevant in football while in the Big East. Since joining the Big 12, their relevance has declined significantly, arguably dramatically. They are just a run of the mill football program these days.

As for markets, yes, WVU does have a presence in the Virginia side of the DC area, lots of WVU alumni head to the DC area to work. Problem is, VT and UVA have that same presence, so from an ACC point of view, WVU isn't needed for that.

They’re still more relevant nationally than Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Louisville, the schools that got their golden ticket out of the Big East.

Um, and I might add got their golden tickets because of a pay model that won't exist in the future. West Virginia is a better content addition than any of the other schools. The couch burning only adds to the spectacle.

Pitt and Rutgers are not content additions. Louisville and Syracuse are more so in hoops. Pitt hoops runs in spurts. But of those only Louisville has maintained any content value in football. West Virginia right now is on top of their game in being competitive in multiple sports.

That said I agree they were probably a better brand while still in the Old Big East. While they have become more diverse in their competitiveness in the Big 12 they are kind of lost with being relevant to the Big 12 because of their outlier status. The first two years the games were novel. Not so much anymore.

(08-29-2018 05:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 05:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:41 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  West Virginia is the only former Big East 2.0 school that has been consistently relevant in football.

I'd say that WVU was highly relevant in football while in the Big East. Since joining the Big 12, their relevance has declined significantly, arguably dramatically. They are just a run of the mill football program these days.

As for markets, yes, WVU does have a presence in the Virginia side of the DC area, lots of WVU alumni head to the DC area to work. Problem is, VT and UVA have that same presence, so from an ACC point of view, WVU isn't needed for that.

They’re still more relevant nationally than Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Louisville, the schools that got their golden ticket out of the Big East.

Um, and I might add got their golden tickets because of a pay model that won't exist in the future. West Virginia is a better content addition than any of the other schools. The couch burning only adds to the spectacle.

Pitt and Rutgers are not content additions. Louisville and Syracuse are more so in hoops. Pitt hoops runs in spurts. But of those only Louisville has maintained any content value in football. West Virginia right now is on top of their game in being competitive in multiple sports.

That said I agree they were probably a better brand while still in the Old Big East. While they have become more diverse in their competitiveness in the Big 12 they are kind of lost with being relevant to the Big 12 because of their outlier status. The first two years the games were novel. Not so much anymore.

They’re in a more competitive conference. Holgresen might have been able to win at least 5-6 Big East games and be a contender for a BE title every year. Not so in the Big XII. Kansas has been the only automatic win while the other 8 conference games are a battle. They haven’t miss a beat in basketball although the Big East of 2005-13 was the best basketball league ever assembled.