OT: ACC Expansion, 5 years later

by **LAPonyAir** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:06 pm

Samurai Stang wrote:"In the five years since realignment was initiated the ACC, with its expanded roster of 12 schools, has signed a seven-year, $258 million contract with ABC and ESPN -- which nearly doubled the annual income of its previous TV deal -- and hosted three football conference title games at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla."

Oh yes, it sounds as though the expansion has been a financial disaster. This article attempts to paint expansion as being a disappointment, and while the money brought in may have not increased as greatly as they had wished it has nonetheless increased. If anything this article proves why PAC-10 expansion makes financial sense, as even with the extras schools to share revenue with each school is receiving more money.

PAC-10 expansion makes financial sense. That is all that really matters. Anyone that thinks it makes no financial sense does not understand math and needs to come up with a new argument against it. As for the article itself, who would have guessed that a newspaper in the home of Georgetown would attempt to make the Big East out to be the greatest conference in existence. This article is more slanted than my eyes.

It's not always about money....that's why the Pac-10 and Big 10 were reluctant to be apart of any championship series until the BCS - and even to this day they're not happy with the system (ie. Oklahoma vs. Washington State). And the article got their quotes from ACC people...I only got the impression from the article that Big East football was a successful conference considering many people thought they weren't deserving of a BCS bid after they lost their best teams....

by **East Coast Mustang** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:16 pm

LAPonyAir wrote:It's not always about money....that's why the Pac-10 and Big 10 were reluctant to be apart of any championship series until the BCS - and even to this day they're not happy with the system (ie. Oklahoma vs. Washington State). And the article got their quotes from ACC people...I only got the impression from the article that Big East football was a successful conference considering many people thought they weren't deserving of a BCS bid after they lost their best teams....

You're right, the Pac-10/Big 10 have resisted going to 12 and a supposedly lucrative FB championship game for what, 12 years now? It seems to be a matter of tradition for them, although the Big 10 was supposedly holding out for ND. ACC, SEC, and B12 have already done it, and BE probably would too if they could find 4 respectable teams to add that wouldn't completely dilute their conference.

by **EastStang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:57 pm

Remember the PAC 10 and Big Ten own the Rose Bowl, whenever the BCS threatens to do something that they don't like or which implies forcing them to do something they don't like, they threaten to leave the BCS and go back to playing each other in the Rose Bowl. So, the PAC 10 will not expand unless it wants to expand and as long as the Big Ten watches their back, they can be as arbitrary as they want to be.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:01 pm

EastStang wrote:Remember the PAC 10 and Big Ten own the Rose Bowl, whenever the BCS threatens to do something that they don't like or which implies forcing them to do something they don't like, they threaten to leave the BCS and go back to playing each other in the Rose Bowl. So, the PAC 10 will not expand unless it wants to expand and as long as the Big Ten watches their back, they can be as arbitrary as they want to be.

Judging by the recent quality of play in these two conferences, maybe the BCS powers that be should tell them to take a hike.

Ohio State had no business playing for the national championship last year.

by **EastStang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:23 pm

The odds are though that at least one of those conferences will have a #1 or #2 ranked team more years than not. Yank them out of the mix, and you suddenly have a tough time fielding a championship game between the Top 2 teams. This is why there has been no plus one game and no playoff. And remember if the BCS tries to force something at the Bowl Division of the NCAA, they only have 5 votes margin to pass anything over the non-BCS schools to force an NCAA playoff. And given that these two conference don't want a playoff, they can effectively kill it unless the other conferences give the non-BCS schools incentive to vote for a playoff (namely a 16 team playoff).

by **East Coast Mustang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:32 pm

EastStang wrote:The odds are though that at least one of those conferences will have a #1 or #2 ranked team more years than not. Yank them out of the mix, and you suddenly have a tough time fielding a championship game between the Top 2 teams. This is why there has been no plus one game and no playoff. And remember if the BCS tries to force something at the Bowl Division of the NCAA, they only have 5 votes margin to pass anything over the non-BCS schools to force an NCAA playoff. And given that these two conference don't want a playoff, they can effectively kill it unless the other conferences give the non-BCS schools incentive to vote for a playoff (namely a 16 team playoff).

Right- it's funny that the B10/P10 don't want a playoff...I guess they see the writing on the wall- that they have a better shot of pulling an upset in one BCS title game (OSU-Miami) than winning 2 or 3 games against quality opponents. If we went to a playoff or plus-one system, the SEC would probably have twice as many BCS titles as they do now...no wonder they want a playoff.

by **LAPonyAir** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:21 pm

It's not just the Pac-10 and Big 10 holding D1-A from a playoff.

From our favorite online newsite:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c ... 1728.story

by **East Coast Mustang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:07 pm

LAPonyAir wrote:It's not just the Pac-10 and Big 10 holding D1-A from a playoff.

From our favorite online newsite:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c ... 1728.story

Right, but the B10/P10/Rose Bowl alliance is really whats holding this whole thing back. They're always concerned about the prominence of the Rose Bowl..it's sickening. As former SEC commish Roy Kramer points out in the article...

"And the Pac-10 and Big Ten don't have any interest in it [a playoff] and I don't see that changing."

by PK » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:23 pm

Stallion wrote:I've always wondered-why does your flag have a RED Hole on it? Why not a BLACK Hole? Or a WHITE Hole?

Watch it...John Wylie Price is looking for people like you. :lol:

by **Stallion** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:28 pm

when an ACC team can bring 18,000 fans (Tech), 15,000 fans(Okie St) or 12,000 fans (Baylor) I'm sure we might consider scheduling them. Until then-Why?

by **EastStang** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:52 pm

Because we might be able to beat Duke. We might be able to beat UNC, or UVA, or even Maryland. But, we would never get a home and home from any ACC team. Copeland couldn't do it and he was wired into that conference. But if we want to get BCS wins, we certainly would have a better chance against some of them, than against, OSU or TT.

by **Big Hoss** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:20 pm

The article was trying to prove that the Big East has become more of a player in football. Really? The only team that has been consistently good is West Virginia. Rutgers popped up a couple years ago, USF made a jump last year before getting pummeled out of the #2 spot, and even Louisville has had a couple decent seasons. But are they really that much better depth-wise than the ACC? I think both of them are at the tail end of the Big BCS conferences.

Saying the Big East is better than the ACC is like proclaiming they are the world's tallest midget. Sure, they might be, but so what?

OT: ACC Expansion, 5 years later

Who is online