Quote:You do realize that Beamer-ball was entirely based upon the Pasqualoni-DeLeone system, right?

-- VT success has more to do with demographics. The population of VA just exploding the last 15 yrs and that more then anything else has helped the Hokies and Cavs. If you look at Tech's roster, most of the players are from in state. That is a great advantage when you are recruiting just to keep kids home as oppposed to a school like WVU or nebraska who always tries to get kids to leave home


Jackson

bitcruncher Wrote:

"Hoquista Wrote:some posters on UConn's scout board still think that they (the BE and UConn) would have been better off is SU was taken over VT.

Quote:Those posters would probably be right. As long as Syracuse remains mediocre in football, they would be a more natural fit in the ACC than VT. VT will probably never be as good as the Orange in basketball, but their football program will remain strong as long as Beamer ball is played.

I am still trying to understand that statement. If the acc is a tougher fb conference than the BE, how in the world is SU a better fit for the acc?


If you say that because of bb, isnt SU just as good a fit in BE basketball as it would be for acc bb?

The other point is what makes you think that SU will stay mediocre in fb?(mediocre would not be the word I would have used for last season) WV did not remain mediocre did they?

Jackson1011 Wrote:

Quote:You do realize that Beamer-ball was entirely based upon the Pasqualoni-DeLeone system, right?

-- VT success has more to do with demographics. The population of VA just exploding the last 15 yrs and that more then anything else has helped the Hokies and Cavs. If you look at Tech's roster, most of the players are from in state. That is a great advantage when you are recruiting just to keep kids home as oppposed to a school like WVU or nebraska who always tries to get kids to leave home


Jackson

VT's formula for success was the following -

Take the Syracuse game plan
Mix in a lot of Thursday night exposure
Have a relatively easy schedule to ensure wins and Top 25 rankings

Then get those recruits in their demographics that use to go other teams, resulting in better athletes (particularly on defense and special teams) to take the SU game plan to the next level.

Cheers,
Neil

All of you people who keep talking about CUSA absorbing any of the 5 remaining Big East football teams if the original ACC expansion had taken place are forgetting something. Louisville hates CUSA and had wanted out since 1997. They wished to go to the Big East, not stay in an oversized CUSA. Cincinnati would surely have followed Louisville as well.

Why would the basketball schools have asked for a split from the football schools in 2003? The situation would have been the same. There would have been 5 football schools remaining (Connecticut, Rutgers, Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia Tech). They still had the Big East name and the BCS bid for the time being, although no one knew what would happen.

Now you have Louisville and Cincinnati who have wanted to join the Big East for years. They have also grown sick and tired of CUSA and want nothing to do with the league any more. Those two easily get the Big East back to 7 football schools. The question on #8 is the only one left. Some would have wanted ECU. Others might have wanted Temple back.

As for which two basketball schools to add, if DePaul and Marquette were not made available, it is really no big deal. There are so many Catholic schools in the Atlantic 10 and other leagues that the Big East would have had their pick and then some. Dave Gavitt would have come up with his 8/8 idea no matter what. There was never going to be a CUSA merger.

HiddenDragon Wrote:And I don't think this is an issue with either school.

That is the bottom line....it's a non-issue.

cuseroc Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:

"Hoquista Wrote:some posters on UConn's scout board still think that they (the BE and UConn) would have been better off is SU was taken over VT.

Those posters would probably be right. As long as Syracuse remains mediocre in football, they would be a more natural fit in the ACC than VT. VT will probably never be as good as the Orange in basketball, but their football program will remain strong as long as Beamer ball is played.

I am still trying to understand that statement. If the acc is a tougher fb conference than the BE, how in the world is SU a better fit for the acc?


If you say that because of bb, isnt SU just as good a fit in BE basketball as it would be for acc bb?

The other point is what makes you think that SU will stay mediocre in fb?(mediocre would not be the word I would have used for last season) WV did not remain mediocre did they?

Th ACC is a better football conference than the BEast? I don't think so. WVU or Louisville would win the ACC this year if they were in it. And don't say from top to bottom either. If you look top to bottom and average it out over the entire membership, the ACC will average lower. Duke and Wake Forest will rival Syracuse for mediocrity. That's 2-1 in the toilet.

Krocker Krapp Wrote:All of you people who keep talking about CUSA absorbing any of the 5 remaining Big East football teams if the original ACC expansion had taken place are forgetting something. Louisville hates CUSA and had wanted out since 1997. They wished to go to the Big East, not stay in an oversized CUSA. Cincinnati would surely have followed Louisville as well.

Why would the basketball schools have asked for a split from the football schools in 2003? The situation would have been the same. There would have been 5 football schools remaining (Connecticut, Rutgers, Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia Tech). They still had the Big East name and the BCS bid for the time being, although no one knew what would happen.

Because the bb schools NEVER, EVER wanted West Virginia or VT - and they didn't want Rutgers in the 90s (they did back in the late70s when the Big East was formulating, but not in the 90s when they got them).

If the ACC had simply gone with the original expansion plan, that means ND would not have been negotiating with the ACC for a spot in their conference from the end of June through the middle of September of 2003.

And since the ACC negotiations broke down because ND wanted a partial membership for 7 years 'to get their house in order' before moving in for all-sports, they obviously would have had no choice but to throw their weight behind the bb schools - which would have given the bb schools the power in the Big East.

Quote:Now you have Louisville and Cincinnati who have wanted to join the Big East for years. They have also grown sick and tired of CUSA and want nothing to do with the league any more. Those two easily get the Big East back to 7 football schools. The question on #8 is the only one left. Some would have wanted ECU. Others might have wanted Temple back.

Again, you are taking this ENTIRELY from the football perspective, just assuming that the bb schools would go along with it - as though they had no input.

The dynamic is totally different when you had 6 football schools, 5 bb schools, and a disinterested ND still negotiating with the ACC versus 5 football schools, and 5 bb schools with ND on their side out of necessity because they weren't ready for all-sports conference affiliation with anyone.

Especially when the 6 football schools were Syracuse, Connecticut, and BC - three founding members of the Big East with one of the hated football schools now gone (VT) versus just having UConn (and a potentially vulnerable Huskies that could be susceptible to throwing in with the bb schools).


Cheers,
Neil

You'all are forgetting some factors. Let's say

1) ACC picked BC,SYracuse, and Miami

i think the SEC would have picked up W.Virg and V.Tech and gone to 14 teams + the ACC eventually also would have gone to 14 with UCONN and Rutgers. What happens between these event's? who knows but i think that's where it would have ended.

bluesox Wrote:You'all are forgetting some factors. Let's say

1) ACC picked BC,SYracuse, and Miami

i think the SEC would have picked up W.Virg and V.Tech and gone to 14 teams + the ACC eventually also would have gone to 14 with UCONN and Rutgers. What happens between these event's? who knows but i think that's where it would have ended.

Wrong.

The SEC sniffed around W.Virg and Va tech in the the late 90's, ditto missouri to a lesser degree. Throw in the impressive football records these school's had recently + the sec desire to stay in front of the ACC and tap new growing markets, its more than likely to have occurred. As for the ACC picking up UCONN and Rutgers, that would be a slower process but for pretty much the same reasons behind the SEC move, the ACC would have picked them up

bluesox Wrote:Whatever, i know for a fact the SEC sniffed around W.Virg and Va tech in the the late 90's, ditto missouri to a lesser degree. Throw in the impressive football records these school's had recently + the sec desire to stay in front of the ACC and tap new growing markets, its more than likely to have occurred. As for the ACC picking up UCONN and Rutgers, that would be a slower process but for pretty much the same reasons behind the SEC move, the ACC would have picked them up

http://www.centralohio.com/ohiostate/sto...11709.html

ACC expansion doesn't concern members of SEC

By Tim Vacek
Gannett News Service


Frank Broyles, athletics director at the University of Arkansas for the last 30 years, is confident he has no reason to worry.

The Southeastern Conference -- Arkansas is a member -- is in better financial shape than any other in the country. It has 12 competitive schools, and his school has one of the most successful athletics programs across the board.

But there is a major shakeup happening in college football right on the SEC's doorstep.

Miami and Virginia Tech have accepted invitations to join the Atlantic Coast Conference. The ACC now has 11 schools, adding two powers to a conference already thriving in SEC territory.

"We didn't see any effect on us since our TV contracts and our bowl contracts are in place and for many years," Broyles said.

Broyles is the expert on conference expansion, as his move to the SEC along with South Carolina's in 1992 formed the first of the 12-team superconferences. The ACC needs a 12th team to be eligible under NCAA rules for a conference championship game in football.

"Our business is going to pretty much go on as usual," Louisiana State University athletics director Skip Bertman said. "Business is good for us. I don't see us changing anything."

The fallout will hit the SEC, league members say, if the ACC triggers a domino effect in other conferences.

"If it happens, I don't think many people will stand still," said Todd Turner, athletics director at Vanderbilt University. "Particularly the mid-major programs are going to have to adjust."

A few weeks ago, Broyles picked up a newspaper only to "learn" it was his fault the ACC was expanding.

"I saw an article ... blaming us for all of this," Broyles said.

Arkansas and South Carolina began the superconference expansion process when they joined the SEC in 1992, expanding the conference to two six-team divisions.

Broyles decided it was best to move his school out of the struggling Southwest Conference and into the flourishing SEC. South Carolina was an independent before entering the SEC.

"It was a great thing for Arkansas," Broyles said. "How could we be ashamed for something that was going to happen anyway in the Southwest Conference? We just left a couple of years before it did."

The 1992 expansion of the SEC and 1996 breakup of the SWC led the Big Eight into the expansion arena. That conference picked up SWC survivors Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech and became the Big 12 in 1996.

"The last time (expansion) happened, everybody said, 'Look out. Everybody's going for superconferences,' " Bertman said. "And it did not happen."

Since 1992, the Big 12 and SEC have accounted for seven of the 12 Division 1-A football national championships.

"One thing it does confirm is that the SEC has had a great model," Vanderbilt football Coach Bobby Johnson said. "They did a great job of beating everybody to the punch with the championship game and the divisions. I think it was just a matter of time before people like the ACC just looked at it and said we've got to do it."

Athletic directors across the conference said there are no current discussions about SEC expansion.

"I don't see anybody out there that the SEC feels would bring to the table enough TV sets to warrant the split of the revenue," Broyles said. "... It would have to have a big TV set base and fan base to warrant the additional split of the money."

At last month's SEC spring meetings, it was projected that number would jump to $101.9 million this year. The addition of another school would cost member schools millions of dollars. Last year, the league's member schools shared $95.7 million from football and basketball revenues.

"There are really only a couple of reasons to expand," Turner said. "One is for money. The other is for philosophical institutional reasons and/or power. ... You've got to get through the first one before you can get to the second one, and I just don't currently see that as a possibility down the road."

Originally published Tuesday, July 8, 2003

I think W.Virg and V.Tech would have been open prey for any future SEC expansion, remember the original SEC plan was to go to 16 teams. Here's the rational behind SEC expansion:

Even with the passage of time, however, the difference between what the SEC did 13 years ago and what the ACC is attempting to do now is stark. Just listen to Kramer.

"One of the things we looked at was homogenous institutions," he said. "We wanted schools with a strong fan base that traveled well. TV wasn't a dominating factor. Our people were interested in fan base and a broad-based program. That drove our deliberations a lot more than TV markets?. I don't know what the ACC is looking for. I suspect that they are looking for TV markets and a football image."

The ACC wants to use Miami and two of its Big East friends to bolster the image of a league that marks autumn not by filled stadiums but by the start of basketball practice on Oct. 15. Kramer didn't profess an opinion about the wisdom of luring Miami to take the leap, but he brought up the ephemeral nature of success in Saturday's America.

"Miami brings significant stature in football," Kramer said. "Syracuse and Boston College are similar to the Virginias and the North Carolina States. Schools change so much over a 5- to 10-year period. It's hard to look down the road and say, 'This makes you a stronger conference.'"

Five years ago, Miami had just finished a 5-6 season. Boston College still operated under the shadow of its 1996 gambling scandal. Now they are the keys to the future prosperity of the ACC. While it's a good bet that Miami will continue its dominance in football, you could have gotten the same odds five years ago on Nebraska, which had just won its third national championship in four years. The Huskers went 7-7 last year.

Some benefits that accrued to the SEC will be available to the ACC, Kramer said, especially the excitement that divisional play induces.

"I don't think anybody anticipated it. Two years ago, we went into the first week of November with eight teams having a shot at going to Atlanta (for the championship game). It has captured the interest of fans in the late season. All of a sudden, Florida-Kentucky had meaning. In the old days, a lot of the championships were decided in mid-October. We created some rivalries that hadn't been there: Tennessee-Florida, LSU-Arkansas. That added to the status of the regular season.

"Does expansion do that for everybody?" Kramer asked. "I don't know. Do you create a rivalry with Boston College and North Carolina? I don't know how that works out. You put South Carolina in the mix with Georgia, Florida and Tennessee, there's a certain geographical interest there. Do you get that same type of thing when you spread out? You have to speculate whether it will."

The ACC has succeeded to this point because of its Tobacco Road tradition, because there is a geographical connection. Even as it has expanded southward, it has done so in steps: the addition of Georgia Tech pushed south of Clemson in 1983, followed in 1992 by the move further south to Florida State. The gamble the ACC is making in inviting Miami, which is south but hardly southern (Miami wants to bring along Syracuse and Boston College because of its alumni base in the northeast), is that it can do a better job at being a sprawling conference than the Big East.

"You have to stand back and look at that," Kramer said "I can't speak to it. I haven't looked at it."

Expansion and a football playoff turned the SEC into a financial behemoth and serves as his legacy, along with the multiple probations that SEC schools brought upon themselves toward the end of Kramer's stewardship. Whether the ACC can create the rewards of that legacy will be decided in the weeks ahead.

Ivan Maisel is a senior writer at ESPN.com. He can be reached at ivan.maisel@espn3.com.

Here's the reason behind ACC expansion:

Dixie is watching. It seems that the ACC?s three most Southern members, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson are all watching this process in frustration.
Don?t think there won?t be some very hard feelings toward Duke and Carolina from the southern contingent if expansion fails. Some critics are already pointing fingers toward the two schools, claiming ?conspiracy,? claiming that Duke and UNC are blocking expansion purely for selfish reasons, purely for basketball reasons.
If expansion fails, not only will the league suffer severe national embarrassment and leave the three Big East schools twisting in the wind, not only will ACC commissioner John Swofford be under fire to resign, but there?s the worry about what FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson might do down the road.
While FSU has denied it made threats to leave the ACC (AD Dave Hart hasn?t denied it but two of the school?s presidents said they never mentioned the idea), and the SEC claims it isn?t thinking about expansion at this time, what happens if the Seminoles, Georgia Tech, Clemson, or even Miami decide they?ve had enough of the ACC?s wishy-washy approach to football? What if any combo of those four schools call the SEC and say that they?re looking for a new league.
Do you really think the SEC wouldn?t start talking?
The three ACC schools have thought for a long time that the ACC has not had their best interests in mind. A failed expansion might drive them in another direction. Is the ACC willing to take that risk?

The SEC isn't expanding and never had interest in expanding. The SEC expanding is nothing but internet rumors started by some people and have taken on a life of their own. The SEC couldn't care less about the ACC because it doesn't effect them. It would be stupid for the ACC and SEC to expand to 14 and they know it. The ACC wouldn't have the votes to expand to 14, they barely had the votes to expand to 12.

bluesox Wrote:You'all are forgetting some factors. Let's say

1) ACC picked BC,SYracuse, and Miami

i think the SEC would have picked up W.Virg and V.Tech and gone to 14 teams + the ACC eventually also would have gone to 14 with UCONN and Rutgers. What happens between these event's? who knows but i think that's where it would have ended.

Points:
1 - The ACC's plan wasn't going to consider UConn and RU to goto 14 if BC, SU, and UM left in 2003 before the BE could react. Where would RU and UConn have been if the ACC raid was successful (see Omnicarriers post above about combining CUSA and BE FB schools and see who got left out)?

2 - The ACCs further expansion would be in 2010 or beyond.

3 - Assuming this would have happened, the ACC would have part of the NE with SU and BC with the only competition for FB in PSU and ND with Pitt a distant 3rd (behind ND, PSU, SU, and BC).

4 - The ACC would have targeted ND and PSU as #13 and #14. If PSU didn't want to leave the Big10 then Pitt probably would have been #14.

Now, the ACC has VT instead of SU. Also, the BE still has the BCS bid, the BE is still around meaning that the ACC doesn't have the NE TV market, and the ACC is now a more southern league instead of 'Pac10 on Steroids'. In addition, there doesn't appear to be any other movement towards conferences that are larger than 12. (Omnicarrier and Gunnerfan already summarized this in another thread entitled Conference Shakeups to Continue and I think ACC still wants SU in grand scheme).

Quote:"One of the things we looked at was homogenous institutions," he said. "We wanted schools with a strong fan base that traveled well. TV wasn't a dominating factor. Our people were interested in fan base and a broad-based program. That drove our deliberations a lot more than TV markets.

-- Wow I wish the BE had this attitude....too much importance is placed on TV markets....especially in college football where rural schools have the large fan bases


Jackson

Jackson, that makes too much sense.

Yeah, i never really thought of penn state and pitt going to the ACC, possible but i doubt penn state ever leaves the big 10. ANyway, its fun to speculate but its nothing more than a guess on what would have happened if this happened or if that happens, you get the picture. My take is SEC will probably now stay at 12, no team to pair with W.Virg. However, the ACC might someday go to 14 but it won't happen for awhile, they just have alot of solid picks for teams 13 and 14 to fill the gap between Maryland and BC. The short term key for the big east is if the big 10 goes to 12, who knows if that will happen anytime soon. Yet, i guess the big east could plan without concerning itself with such moves. As for what they should do, either add 1 hoop and 1 football school and split into divisions or just split all together.

Hoquista Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:You'all are forgetting some factors. Let's say

1) ACC picked BC,SYracuse, and Miami

i think the SEC would have picked up W.Virg and V.Tech and gone to 14 teams + the ACC eventually also would have gone to 14 with UCONN and Rutgers. What happens between these event's? who knows but i think that's where it would have ended.

Points:
1 - The ACC's plan wasn't going to consider UConn and RU to goto 14 if BC, SU, and UM left in 2003 before the BE could react. Where would RU and UConn have been if the ACC raid was successful (see Omnicarriers post above about combining CUSA and BE FB schools and see who got left out)?

2 - The ACCs further expansion would be in 2010 or beyond.

3 - Assuming this would have happened, the ACC would have part of the NE with SU and BC with the only competition for FB in PSU and ND with Pitt a distant 3rd (behind ND, PSU, SU, and BC).

4 - The ACC would have targeted ND and PSU as #13 and #14. If PSU didn't want to leave the Big10 then Pitt probably would have been #14.

Now, the ACC has VT instead of SU. Also, the BE still has the BCS bid, the BE is still around meaning that the ACC doesn't have the NE TV market, and the ACC is now a more southern league instead of 'Pac10 on Steroids'. In addition, there doesn't appear to be any other movement towards conferences that are larger than 12. (Omnicarrier and Gunnerfan already summarized this in another thread entitled Conference Shakeups to Continue and I think ACC still wants SU in grand scheme).

Big East 2003 (still under BCS contract, $14M)
1. Providence
2. St. John's
3. Georgetown
4. Seton Hall
5. Villanova

6. Notre Dame

1. Connecticut
2. Pittsburgh
3. Virginia Tech
4. Rutgers
5. West Virginia

1. Miami
2. Boston College
3. Syracuse

If the ACC gone with their original expansion plan
You are saying that VT, WV, Pitt willing to leave the BE at $1M each exit fee and join C-USA and form this giant hybrid of 18 members C-USA. Instead of keeping Temple and inviting some C-USA teams and joins us? We still has seat at BCS table. Remember in 2003, UConn opened a $90M stadium. UConn lot is with the football schools.

C-USA 2003
1. Cincinnati (fb/bb)
2. Louisville (fb/bb)
3. TCU (fb/bb)
4. ECU (fb/bb)
5. Memphis (fb/bb)
6. USF (fb 2004/bb)
7. Southern Miss (fb/bb)
8. UAB (fb/bb)
9. Houston (fb/bb)
10. Tulane (fb/bb)
11. Marquette (bb)
12. Charlotte (bb)
13. DePaul (bb)
14. Saint Louis (bb)
15. Army (fb)

The responses to this are earlier in the thread by Omnicarrier - essentially CUSA becomes all sports with no 'FB-only' or 'BB-schools'.

Hoquista Wrote:The responses to this are earlier in the thread by Omnicarrier - essentially CUSA becomes all sports with no 'FB-only' or 'BB-schools'.

How do they do that? C-USA just simply kicks out all members that don?t play football or football only. It?s only works if everyone agrees to do it. Lawsuit will file by those that force out. There are only 2 open slots if WVU and VT want to go. Considering the history VT has with people in C-USA. It would not happen. BE BB schools wouldn?t vote us out. It would still end up with a few teams from C-USA ask to join the BE than the other way around.