Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
  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 TJ was Broke View Post
    I'd rather give full membership to a program like Texas or Penn State, although neither is realistic today. If we're going to add programs to get to 16 then it would be a terrible mistake to further dilute the ACC football brand with an also-ran in Cincinnati or UCONN that have no national appeal whatsoever. Navy at least has national appeal in all 50 states.

    If we're going to add a 16th team for full membership we might as well wait out the demise of the Big XII and pick up a program like Texas or Kansas that are major national brands, or a program like WVU that would reunite 2 major rivalries in Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech and a minor rivalry in WVU-FSU. Cincinnati and UCONN are cold fish.

    Anyway, the debate is academic--Notre Dame would never in a million years join the ACC to be placed in a pod with UCONN--there is absolutely no appeal in that whatsoever. So the argument about what we prefer is academic. Notre Dame MIGHT join the ACC at some point in the future with Navy and another Catholic school. ND has no reason whatsoever to join the ACC with UCONN and then to join its pod. It's not a logical proposition.
    Everything you mentioned about Notre Dame in your last paragraph explains why they shouldn't be in the ACC as a partial member. It's all about them, not the ACC. It may create problems within the ACC down the road. I'm not holding my breath on getting any Big 12 schools. True, Texas and Oklahoma, even Penn State are a lot sexier, but in most likelihood will never set foot in the ACC. Schools like UConn and Cincinnati are more realistic. The addition of Pitt and Syracuse should be enough proof of that. UConn has a better athletics program than both of those additions (more national men's and women's basketball championships and better soccer, baseball,....). Navy would bring back the Baltimore-MD Eastern Shore TV market to the ACC, but living in/near Baltimore there for 27 years, Navy was a distant 2nd to Maryland in football support and that's not saying much since no one really cares about Terps football.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    December 18, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    Everything you mentioned about Notre Dame in your last paragraph explains why they shouldn't be in the ACC as a partial member. It's all about them, not the ACC. It may create problems within the ACC down the road. I'm not holding my breath on getting any Big 12 schools. True, Texas and Oklahoma, even Penn State are a lot sexier, but in most likelihood will never set foot in the ACC. Schools like UConn and Cincinnati are more realistic. The addition of Pitt and Syracuse should be enough proof of that. UConn has a better athletics program than both of those additions (more national men's and women's basketball championships and better soccer, baseball,....). Navy would bring back the Baltimore-MD Eastern Shore TV market to the ACC, but living in/near Baltimore there for 27 years, Navy was a distant 2nd to Maryland in football support and that's not saying much since no one really cares about Terps football.
    So you're saying the best move for the ACC is to water down the football league even more by adding onto its mistake with Syracuse and Pittsburgh? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    As far as Notre Dame not belonging in the ACC because of its attitude, again, that's an academic argument--they're here and they have the support of the league. But if you don't like Notre Dame as a partial member then that actually bolsters my argument for Navy since it would bring in Notre Dame as a full member. UCONN and Cincinnati would make it even more difficult to get Notre Dame in as a full member.
    Last edited by TJ was Broke; Mon Dec 30 2013 at 07:14 PM.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    December 18, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    Well, everybody else in college football might just tell ND it has to join a conference, and as I explained, ND would still be able to easily fill out a schedule with its usual rivals. They could play 7 conference games, their 3 usual rivals, and have 2 entire games to work with OOC. And BTW, ND is wanting to play more and more on the East coast. There's a large catholic population in Conn obviously, and it's situated smack dab in the middle of Boston and NYC. Why would ND NOT want to play them? They could probably work out an agreement to play UCONN's home games in Foxborough if need be?
    You understand that your position makes absolutely no sense, correct? You're asserting that Notre Dame might join the ACC out of force--if that were the case then why the heck would they only be required to play 7 ACC games? That doesn't make any logical sense at all whatsoever...

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    December 18, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by gman86 View Post
    While I appreciate the out of the box thinking here... I am against most of the recommended solutions:

    1) Add Navy as a full member. Against it. I have great respect for the service academies, but as an athletic partner, they are far behind a full ACC in just about every sport. It would weaken the conference and put Navy on a path that would be very difficult to sustain.

    2) Add Navy for football only and add Georgetown (or someone like them) for all other sports. I am totally against this. The addition of Navy for football only weakens the football product. Yes, they can likely compete with Wake and Duke... but the ACC does not need any more teams like this. Also, adding another triple option team is simply a pain in the butt to prepare for and could likely trip up some good teams. Even worse... adding a non-FB member like Georgetown is the Big East all over again. No, No, A Thousand Times No! Never again should we subject ourselves to the whims of any program that does not play football. Ugh!

    I would love to see ND join... but only if they want to join. I don't want any member that thinks the ACC is Plan B or Plan C. Once ND starts playing ACC teams regularly... if they like the rivalries and if they feel the conference is better for them then remaining independent... then welcome them in. If not, the ACC can be a happy place playing them in FB every 3 years.
    You would love to see Notre Dame join? Ok. If Notre Dame joined under its own volition who the heck do you think they would pick to be #16? It would be Navy. That's not even a question. There is less than 0% chance that Notre Dame would select Cincinnati or UCONN as #16. It's a preposterous notion. So again, the arguments are are entirely academic--Notre Dame will not be joining the ACC + UCONN or + Cincinnati. Both selections are preposterous additions.

  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 TJ was Broke View Post
    So you're saying the best move for the ACC is to water down the football league even more by adding onto its mistake with Syracuse and Pittsburgh? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    As far as Notre Dame not belonging in the ACC because of its attitude, again, that's an academic argument--they're here and they have the support of the league. But if you don't like Notre Dame as a partial member then that actually bolsters my argument for Navy since it would bring in Notre Dame as a full member. UCONN and Cincinnati would make it even more difficult to get Notre Dame in as a full member.
    I didn't say that. The reality is Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC. Reality is the key word. The reality is the ACC probably did the best they could do with expansion with Pitt and Cuse. Maybe Rutgers was a better choice? Maybe UConn? The ACC has had a thing for Syracuse since the first round of realignment with Miami, Tech, and BC. The ACC originally wanted Syracuse over Tech . Why Pitt over UConn? Most likely because BC didn't want UConn. I, along with numerous posters here, just feel most of the schools being mentioned are unrealistic. It would take a 20 member ACC to get some of the Big 12 schools. Penn State is staying in the Big 10. Why would they throw away their CIC membership? Texas will most likely end up staying with all the other Big 12 schools when all is said and done. As long as the Big 12 can keep their Power 5 status, why would Texas want to go to the ACC? They don't need the money. They are doing better in the Big 12. Plus there's no guarantee that adding Navy would get Notre Dame into the ACC as a full member. Notre Dame's football identity is being an Independent. They will do everything possible to keep it that way. That's just Notre Dame.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ was Broke View Post
    You would love to see Notre Dame join? Ok. If Notre Dame joined under its own volition who the heck do you think they would pick to be #16? It would be Navy. That's not even a question. There is less than 0% chance that Notre Dame would select Cincinnati or UCONN as #16. It's a preposterous notion. So again, the arguments are are entirely academic--Notre Dame will not be joining the ACC + UCONN or + Cincinnati. Both selections are preposterous additions.
    Wow man. UCONN was very much considered the last time the ACC expanded. We have direct quotes indicating BC held that up and Pitt was chosen instead. And ND may be forced into a conference at any moment if Bama, Oregon, FSU, etc. get tired of allowing them such special privileges. In this instance, they wouldn't be calling the shots alone, they would be one voice of 15.

    Your other potential candidates for 16 make far less sense than UCONN. PSU ain't giving up CIC membership. Texas or Oklahoma ain't going to a conference 1000 miles away unless they bring a number of nearby playmates. And the ACC ain't gonna fall for the preposterous concept of partial membership for the likes of Navy. They reluctantly did so for ND, and Navy isn't in the same conference expansion wars stratosphere as ND. Your scenario may happen, but most of us who follow this expansion stuff seem to agree it's far less likely than the addition of UCONN or Cincinnati options.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    They didn't want UCONN because of NCAA investigation on lack of institutional control; a program that is out of control, it has demonstrated academic problems with their athletic programs, and mediocre supported football team. PITT built the new arena, sustained well funded athletic program, great basketball arena. Enough said


    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I didn't say that. The reality is Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC. Reality is the key word. The reality is the ACC probably did the best they could do with expansion with Pitt and Cuse. Maybe Rutgers was a better choice? Maybe UConn? The ACC has had a thing for Syracuse since the first round of realignment with Miami, Tech, and BC. The ACC originally wanted Syracuse over Tech . Why Pitt over UConn? Most likely because BC didn't want UConn. I, along with numerous posters here, just feel most of the schools being mentioned are unrealistic. It would take a 20 member ACC to get some of the Big 12 schools. Penn State is staying in the Big 10. Why would they throw away their CIC membership? Texas will most likely end up staying with all the other Big 12 schools when all is said and done. As long as the Big 12 can keep their Power 5 status, why would Texas want to go to the ACC? They don't need the money. They are doing better in the Big 12. Plus there's no guarantee that adding Navy would get Notre Dame into the ACC as a full member. Notre Dame's football identity is being an Independent. They will do everything possible to keep it that way. That's just Notre Dame.

  8. #28
    Melbourne Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 01, 2005
    Location
    In a series of tubes, filled mostly with cats
    Posts
    43,158
    Quote Originally Posted by acis111 View Post
    My understanding is that pods are just component of division. Pod system is just how to construct each division. For example,

    year1.

    Coastal Atlantic
    pod1 pod2
    pod3 pod 4

    year 2
    coastal atlantic
    pod1 pod3
    pod2 pod4

    year 3
    coastal atlantic
    pod1 pod2
    pod4 pod4

    Each year, the coastal champion will play atlantic champion as before. In other words, NCAA would see only two divisions. We just change teams within divisions each year. Maybe i'm mikstaken...but that's my understanding.
    I do not believe you can change divisional composition on a year-in year-out basis.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    They didn't want UCONN because of NCAA investigation on lack of institutional control; a program that is out of control, it has demonstrated academic problems with their athletic programs, and mediocre supported football team. PITT built the new arena, sustained well funded athletic program, great basketball arena. Enough said
    Well, you might wanna inform the BC AD of that. He flat out said that BC was what prevented UCONN from taking Pitt's spot. UCONN is very much on the radar for the ACC. There's only a handful of realistic options for the ACC right now, and UCONN has tremendous advantages over all of the rest. Bball, academics, media markets, etc. (all things we can be assured are very important to the ACC) all favor UCONN over any other realistic option. PSU is unrealistic. Partial Navy is far less attractive. Texas or Oklahoma alone is simply not a realistic option. Anyhow, unless some Big12 teams come in a block, UCONN is about the best around for the ACC. They are just as good as S. Florida, Cinn., UCF, or Tulane in football and have significant advantages over them all when it comes to bball, media markets, and academics. Enough said.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne Hokie View Post
    I do not believe you can change divisional composition on a year-in year-out basis.
    If you look at the NCAA bylaws, then you will see there is nothing requires that divisions be constant. The only requirement is if a conference forms 2 divisions then they must play a round robin division schedule. The reason conferences (excluding the WAC experiment) prefer continuity to their divisions is for primary marketing purposes. The average football fan prefers continuity because it is easier for them to develop their team's group identity (i.e. ACC Coastal Division Member) and easier to develop rivalries. Typically rivalries develop when 2 teams play more frequently and often have competitive games. For example currently it would be easier for VT to develop a rivalry with Duke than say Wake because VT will play Duke more frequently (annually vs. 2 times every 12 years). Like I said before the WAC tried the rotating pods when it expanded to 16 teams and it was considered a failure. It was one of the reasons the 8 schools left the WAC to form the Mountain West. It may even be a reason why another conference may not be too eager to give it another shot.

Posting Permissions

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