Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    I'm a little nervous that we left Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider particularly with the ACC strategy of having presence in New York City while the Big Ten wants it too. And I think it is Boston College that was blackballing UConn because they want to be the only New England team. I hope that the ACC doesn't regret not taking them if the Big Ten gets them like the Big XII is regretting with Louisville. I can easily see the Big Ten taking UConn and Kansas and then proclaiming themselves as "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled". The ACC should not want that.

    UConn is not AAU, but Kansas is AAU. So that will be a turnoff to the Big Ten regarding UConn, but I still worry. I'm somewhat in favor of taking them and locking down that quadrant of the geography for the ACC. Temple and Cincinnati aren't vulnerable to be lost as options because of other Big Ten presence in their states, but Connecticut is.
    I feel the same way about UConn. I know Syracuse prides itself as "New York's Team" but I honestly don't believe that they truly are. It's more of a marketing gimmick. Rutgers actually gets higher TV ratings for football than Cuse and probably would get better hoops ratings if they ever elevated their program. Rutgers is 30 minutes from NYC, Cuse is in the same state but Upstate NY is a world away for many in NYC. UConn would give the ACC a second team in the NYC area. UConn would give the ACC New England's top 2 football programs. Honestly, I'd rather have UConn than BC any day. UConn is a public land-grant university like Tech, NC State, and Clemson. Having another one wouldn't hurt. I can see the Big 10 taking UConn and establishing themselves as New York City's conference. I agree with you that not taking them could be a huge mistake for the ACC down the road. I also have to admit that I'm partial to UConn because most of my relatives live in Connecticut.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    The BC thing was all driven by Donna Shalala. The ACC wanted Miami and needed 2 other schools to make 12 for a championship game. She wanted Boston College and Syracuse. She got Virginia Tech, then eventually the other two. I wouldn't say that Boston College has brought zilch. Boston College has been in 2 Football Championship Games and 1 Basketball Championship Game since they've been here. I can't say that Virginia's done either. They also played a part in the luring of Notre Dame for the ACC as did Pittsburgh.
    Their presence in those games had disastrous consequences. The fact that they came in and actually won games hurt the ACC because they have no fans that actually care. Those wins would have been much better going to Pitt and Rutgers because they may have gotten TV viewers and spectators involved. No bowl wants anything to do with BC and neither does any network. The best thing for the ACC would have been BC losing every game and becoming an easy W for the schools that have fans.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    June 05, 2003
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I feel the same way about UConn. I know Syracuse prides itself as "New York's Team" but I honestly don't believe that they truly are. It's more of a marketing gimmick. Rutgers actually gets higher TV ratings for football than Cuse and probably would get better hoops ratings if they ever elevated their program. Rutgers is 30 minutes from NYC, Cuse is in the same state but Upstate NY is a world away for many in NYC. UConn would give the ACC a second team in the NYC area. UConn would give the ACC New England's top 2 football programs. Honestly, I'd rather have UConn than BC any day. UConn is a public land-grant university like Tech, NC State, and Clemson. Having another one wouldn't hurt. I can see the Big 10 taking UConn and establishing themselves as New York City's conference. I agree with you that not taking them could be a huge mistake for the ACC down the road. I also have to admit that I'm partial to UConn because most of my relatives live in Connecticut.
    The only college football team with any traction in New York City is Notre Dame. They aren't in the ACC, but with their toe in the water with the ACC it will help ACC football in New York. No one else holds the interest of New Yorkers other than alumni there for schools other places. Rutgers doesn't have much advantage over Syracuse I don't think in New York as far as football. On the basketball side, which is the college sport New Yorkers care the most about, Syracuse wins that over Rutgers without question. Combining that with Notre Dame really helps the ACC in New York. I just think Uconn adds another reinforcement that the ACC could use.

    I always go back to the Mike Francesa recording where he talks about Rutgers. He's New York's talk radio personality. It's 2 years old, but nothing has changed even with their Big Ten invite.

    http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-footb...gers-hangs-up/

  4. #24

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    I can't understand what leverage the ACC thought Miami had.

    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    The BC thing was all driven by Donna Shalala. The ACC wanted Miami and needed 2 other schools to make 12 for a championship game. She wanted Boston College and Syracuse. She got Virginia Tech, then eventually the other two. I wouldn't say that Boston College has brought zilch. Boston College has been in 2 Football Championship Games and 1 Basketball Championship Game since they've been here. I can't say that Virginia's done either. They also played a part in the luring of Notre Dame for the ACC as did Pittsburgh.
    In 2003, the SEC had no interest, and the Big Ten surely had no interest. Did the ACC believe that the Big 12 wanted Miami? Doubtful.

    The bottom line is that the ACC could have threatened to take key members from the Big East and leave Miami stranded. The ACC could have had any three (or five) schools it wanted. Nobody else was shopping for Big East schools. They didn't have to take BC to make Miami happy.

    As for Notre Dame, I'd say that inviting BC was a failed strategy. If the ACC was going to roll the dice, they should have taken Rutgers and Pitt and rolled the dice on PSU. As a consequence of that bad call, Maryland is gone.

    The ACC leadership is comprised of reactionary buffoons. That's why it's 2013 and we're just now talking about a conference TV network.
    Last edited by lawhokie; Tue Jul 09 2013 at 08:34 AM.

  5. #25
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    In 2003, the SEC had no interest, and the Big Ten surely had no interest. Did the ACC believe that the Big 12 wanted Miami? Doubtful.

    The bottom line is that the ACC could have threatened to take key members from the Big East and leave Miami stranded. The ACC could have had any three (or five) schools it wanted. Nobody else was shopping for Big East schools. They didn't have to take BC to make Miami happy.

    As for Notre Dame, I'd say that inviting BC was a failed strategy. If the ACC was going to roll the dice, they should have taken Rutgers and Pitt and rolled the dice on PSU. As a consequence of that bad call, Maryland is gone.

    The ACC leadership is comprised of reactionary buffoons. That's why it's 2013 and we're just now talking about a conference TV network.
    Miami was a hot commodity back in 2003. They played in 2 BCS championship games a few years earlier. At that time Miami looked like the sure thing. Of course they mightily underachieved once they joined the ACC. UConn would've been a better addition than BC but the ACC's thinking, like the Big 10's, was about TV market size. At that time UConn was just happy to be joining the Big East while BC aggressively sought ACC membership. BC football was superior to UConn football who was leaving the FCS level for the FBS level. Joe Paterno was alive and well at Penn State and wanted nothing to do with the ACC. Paterno was a Big 10 man. PSU's Big 10 membership was part of his legacy.

    In 2003, I would have selected Tech, Miami, and Pitt if the decision was based on football and academics.

    As for Maryland, I believe they would have left the ACC even if PSU and Rutgers weren't in the Big 10. Their decision was based on 2 factors. 1. Their athletic department was a financial mess. 2. Their new president, Wallace Loh, was a Big 10 man with Big 10 dreams and could care less about Maryland's 50 years of ACC membership.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    But who wanted Miami as part of their conference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    Miami was a hot commodity back in 2003. They played in 2 BCS championship games a few years earlier. At that time Miami looked like the sure thing. Of course they mightily underachieved once they joined the ACC. UConn would've been a better addition than BC but the ACC's thinking, like the Big 10's, was about TV market size. At that time UConn was just happy to be joining the Big East while BC aggressively sought ACC membership. BC football was superior to UConn football who was leaving the FCS level for the FBS level. Joe Paterno was alive and well at Penn State and wanted nothing to do with the ACC. Paterno was a Big 10 man. PSU's Big 10 membership was part of his legacy.

    In 2003, I would have selected Tech, Miami, and Pitt if the decision was based on football and academics.

    As for Maryland, I believe they would have left the ACC even if PSU and Rutgers weren't in the Big 10. Their decision was based on 2 factors. 1. Their athletic department was a financial mess. 2. Their new president, Wallace Loh, was a Big 10 man with Big 10 dreams and could care less about Maryland's 50 years of ACC membership.
    For Miami, it was the ACC or a gutted Big East. It's impossible to say where the ACC would be now if they'd chosen Pitt or Rutgers in 2003, but we do know that the choices that were made put us in a situation now that isn't so great.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    September 19, 2002
    Posts
    16,734
    Lets see how good UConn is post Calhoun.

    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    I'm a little nervous that we left Connecticut on the table for the Big Ten to consider particularly with the ACC strategy of having presence in New York City while the Big Ten wants it too. And I think it is Boston College that was blackballing UConn because they want to be the only New England team. I hope that the ACC doesn't regret not taking them if the Big Ten gets them like the Big XII is regretting with Louisville. I can easily see the Big Ten taking UConn and Kansas and then proclaiming themselves as "the best collection of basketball schools ever assembled". The ACC should not want that.

    UConn is not AAU, but Kansas is AAU. So that will be a turnoff to the Big Ten regarding UConn, but I still worry. I'm somewhat in favor of taking them and locking down that quadrant of the geography for the ACC. Temple and Cincinnati aren't vulnerable to be lost as options because of other Big Ten presence in their states, but Connecticut is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •