PonyFans.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01560.html

Hard to argue that the ACC Expansion hasn't gone as well as they had hoped, at least in terms of success on the field. I always thought they should have taken West Virginia over BC.

This is why a Pac-10 expansion seems pointless to me. The financial payoff for the ACC has not reached expectations, and their reason for expanding was to gain better football teams. I remember back then how great it would be to see FSU, Miami, and VTech going at it year after year. It was a good concept given the names and matchup possibilities. Now I miss the days of FSU ruling the ACC and Miami and VTech doing the same in the Big East (especially with West Virginia's emergence).

That being said, I do not believe adding schools such as BYU and Utah would add to the quality of the Pac-10 and benefit them. Yea, they're traditionally successful, but they would not make the Pac-10 a higher profile conference. And adding a championship game would raise revenue, but would it be worth it given the ACC's perceived failures?

Were you looking for the Wake Forest board?

You're exactly right LAPonyAir.

Totally pointless & mindless for the PAC10 to expand.

Don't screw up a good thing.

LAPonyAir wrote:This is why a Pac-10 expansion seems pointless to me. The financial payoff for the ACC has not reached expectations, and their reason for expanding was to gain better football teams. I remember back then how great it would be to see FSU, Miami, and VTech going at it year after year. It was a good concept given the names and matchup possibilities. Now I miss the days of FSU ruling the ACC and Miami and VTech doing the same in the Big East (especially with West Virginia's emergence).

That being said, I do not believe adding schools such as BYU and Utah would add to the quality of the Pac-10 and benefit them. Yea, they're traditionally successful, but they would not make the Pac-10 a higher profile conference. And adding a championship game would raise revenue, but would it be worth it given the ACC's perceived failures?

I agree- unless the Pac-10 can get a big name program to jump ship like Colorado (which has been mentioned before) or Texas and A&M (which was also considered a few years ago) then it's really pointless for them to split the pot. I don't think the extra revenue from a championship game offsets adding two more schools if those schools are Utah and BYU. And, it can keep a team out of the BCS Championship if they lose in the conference championship.

In a way, that's the best thing about "nonexpansion" for the PAC10 & the Rose Bowl-Big10 tie-in - It screws up the Bcs-BS.

yea the acc has gotten screwed over the past couple years as both florida state and miami have fallen off the map quite a bit in terms of going to big bowl games.

Too bad. (sarcasm) Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Bcs-BS members

[quote I always thought they should have taken West Virginia over BC.[/quote]

I agree, BC is like TCU in the mountain west. not near any of these schools. BC to U of Marlyland (I believe the closest) 7 hours away almost 400 miles. have to pay for all those girl teams and non revenue sports to play in the conference. BC natural rivals were all in the northeast.

anyway, good for the big east to overtake the ACC on wins and prestige. gives some hope for the conference USA.

bubba pony wrote:I agree, BC is like TCU in the mountain west. not near any of these schools. BC to U of Marlyland (I believe the closest) 7 hours away almost 400 miles. have to pay for all those girl teams and non revenue sports to play in the conference. BC natural rivals were all in the northeast.

Yeah, BC really didn't do themselves any favors, and I don't think they help the ACC that much in terms of market size, since the Sox, Pats, and Celtics really dominate that market.

bubba pony wrote:[quote I always thought they should have taken West Virginia over BC.

I agree, BC is like TCU in the mountain west. not near any of these schools. BC to U of Marlyland (I believe the closest) 7 hours away almost 400 miles. have to pay for all those girl teams and non revenue sports to play in the conference. BC natural rivals were all in the northeast.

anyway, good for the big east to overtake the ACC on wins and prestige. gives some hope for the conference USA.[/quote]

That was the Big Ten's concern when Penn State entered.

i just want to be ready for the big east expansion and get an invite there

Big 16, baby.

"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.

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