If both the B1G and ACC wanted to add UCONN, which would you prefer and why?

[omniorange]

Neil, hi you're one of the VERY few SU fan dot posters that before i was banned lol was fairly rational and friendly. You're observation is pretty much the way I see it except for the fact of payouts,CIC and a big research flagship their B1G looking mostly but could easily fit in the ACC too. I also don't see anymore moves that won't include UConn into the P5 unless the PAC12/SEC is the mover !?!

Size wise, at the moment, UConn is more like an ACC public institution. And while they are definitely making progress in terms of research, they are still very far away from the majority of research behemoths in the BiG. Which is why I still maintain they are betwixt and between. I think the vision of what the administration has for UConn is mostly BiG like, but over the next decade or so, I think they line up more with ACC public institutions.

I'd add the Big 12 to the Pac and SEC. When UConn gets an invite it will be either the BiG or the ACC.

The ACC says it is happy with the current divisional alignment for football, but the rumor is 6 out of 14 are not. And I suspect of the 8 who are, all 7 of the programs in the Coastal Division. Just as FSU and Clemson may have forced the ACC's hand in taking Louisville over UConn due to football reasons (which some of you know I supported Louisville from that sports angle perspective but didn't think the ACC would pull that trigger due to academics), I think the Noles and Tigers will likely want to scrap divisions altogether in a few years.

And, with the continuing problems at UNC and perhaps sanctions looming in the future (which might even lead to Roy Williams resignation or "retirement" in a few years), it wouldn't surprise me to see when the ACC asks ESPN for its review at the first 5-year "look in" of the new tv contract, they don't at least discuss the possibility of what adding UConn might bring to the value of the contract.

But a lot can happen between now and then.

Anyway, good luck to UConn. As I said in my earlier post I have a great deal of respect for UConn athletics. And Nicky, good luck to Rutgers in the BiG but honestly I think the Scarlet Knights are better off having a 2-3 win initial season so they can fire Flood and get a new coach.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[NickyNewark]

Size wise, at the moment, UConn is more like an ACC public institution. And while they are definitely making progress in terms of research, they are still very far away from the majority of research behemoths in the BiG. Which is why I still maintain they are betwixt and between. I think the vision of what the administration has for UConn is mostly BiG like, but over the next decade or so, I think they line up more with ACC public institutions.

I'd add the Big 12 to the Pac and SEC. When UConn gets an invite it will be either the BiG or the ACC.

The ACC says it is happy with the current divisional alignment for football, but the rumor is 6 out of 14 are not. And I suspect of the 8 who are, all 7 of the programs in the Coastal Division. Just as FSU and Clemson may have forced the ACC's hand in taking Louisville over UConn due to football reasons (which some of you know I supported Louisville from that sports angle perspective but didn't think the ACC would pull that trigger due to academics), I think the Noles and Tigers will likely want to scrap divisions altogether in a few years.

And, with the continuing problems at UNC and perhaps sanctions looming in the future (which might even lead to Roy Williams resignation or "retirement" in a few years), it wouldn't surprise me to see when the ACC asks ESPN for its review at the first 5-year "look in" of the new tv contract, they don't at least discuss the possibility of what adding UConn might bring to the value of the contract.

But a lot can happen between now and then.

Anyway, good luck to UConn. As I said in my earlier post I have a great deal of respect for UConn athletics. And Nicky, good luck to Rutgers in the BiG but honestly I think the Scarlet Knights are better off having a 2-3 win initial season so they can fire Flood and get a new coach.

Cheers,
Neil

You are indeed a pleasant and rational Cuse fan as are a few others upstate and in NJ and I agree with just about every word esp it would serve RU to not win more than 4 or 5 games so they can "s-can" nice guy bad recruiter Kelis Fisher and let JH make a signature hire!! I respect you're awareness of eastern college FB omniorange...Cheers,lol.....our party is manana...or 3 hrs.

 

[omniorange]

. I flat out don't have a clue what strategy might explain the ACC's approach to conference expansion. What set of common goals were they pursuing? That's the question I asked (or meant to anyway).

Without a common set of goals, without a cogent strategy to achieve those goals, you're not swimming, you're just splashing in the pool. Discussing whether UConn or Louisville was the better fit for the ACC moot because we don't know the decision making criteria and I, at least, can't discern any logical set of criteria that explain Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville. The Big Ten moves on Rutgers and Maryland and an inference can be deduced. What inference can you deduce from Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville?

And come on man, the ACC makes a 30-50 year commitment to a new conference mate based on a 20 minute (I'm sure it went on longer but the management summary was probably 20 mins. or so) Powerpoint pitch given over the Thanksgiving weekend? Please. That just screams desperation. Face it dude, you're rudderless, a member of a conference futzing around the fringes trying to solve big problems with tactics. At the moment, the ACC is not configured for success.

Though I am not the poster you were discussing this with, it's an intriguing question that you ask. I think the root of it goes back to the 2003 expansion which was planned out in 2001 and 2002.

That expansion was supposedly going to be about football and the vision of an ACC that stretched the entire east coast from Boston to Miami. But not everyone in the ACC was on board with the plan of Miami, BC, and SU because the football powers for the most part could care less about the northeast. They want to be in an SEC like football centric conference (not a conference known for basketball). I'm sure secretly they would have preferred Miami, VT, and WVU but Swofford and the consultants sold them on a vision of what the ACC might eventually look like as a 14 or 16 team conference in the future. And to possibly attract two bigger name football targets than VT and WVU, they needed to first become a conference that can be sold as an entire Atlantic Coast Conference. Neither Rutgers nor UConn was even on the radar at that time, nor in all honesty, should they have been.

Obviously the ACC needed Miami football (at least the Miami powerhouses of the early 00s and they still do since they really haven't shown up like those teams since they went to the ACC) but they the hoped for goal down the road was ND and/or PSU. And remember, back in 2003 there was no BTN which makes the latter target now virtually untouchable but then it was at least a slight possibility - snowball's chance but still a chance. So, with JoePa's likely adamant stance against Pitt on their minds, they were probably thinking add SU and BC with Miami and see if ND and PSU bite 5-7 years down the road. If they do, then not taking VT and WVU at that time pays off big. But the football centric schools wanted the football improved right there and then. And then in steps Virginia politics and the stubbornness of UNC and Duke that basically makes the ACC SEC-lite with a northeastern satellite in Boston.

In retrospect, the football centric schools were correct to want VT since it was the Hokies addition that helped make the Miami downturn not quite an abysmal failure.

Now fast forward to 2011. Whatever pipe dreams the ACC had in 2003 are long gone. They are in an extremely weak position and their best hope for surviving was ND, even on a partial basis, getting FSU, Clemson, VT, and GT games vs ND to help offset some of the lackluster conference opponents. Which is why they chose SU and Pitt. Sure Swarbrick lambasted SU and Pitt for leaving, but a year later ND is in the ACC with a guarantee of playing 5 games a year against ACC teams and that ND has to cycle through all of the teams every three years. That's not coincidence. Might it have happened with UConn and/or Rutgers possibly. But Pitt is a semi-regular opponent for ND and SU had already scheduled a 4 game series with two of the games being at MetLife.

So, in that regard, getting ND on board and securing a better overall tv contract that at least got them close to the others - the expansion was a success. The kicker was Maryland accepting a BiG invite. The football centric schools were probably not to please with taking Pitt and SU, probably preferring WVU and Pitt. So they were in a good bargaining position at that time and likely forced Louisville (a southern schools with recent football success) over UConn.

I guess this is just a long-winded response to say, as Ben Franklin once did, "half improvised and half compromise" only this time in regard to conference expansion rather than revolutions.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[woomba]

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote but there is one point that I do have an issue with.

If ND was the critical piece to stabilize the ACC as you say - then wouldn't the ACC been better off just holding off for a year and sitting tight? I don't buy that the deal was a year coming and the ACC added Pitt and Syracuse with ND in mind. If you ask any ND fan you see that they don't value those matchups at all - their primary interest is access to the south and easy scheduling. The old 12 member delivered on that better than the current 14-member configuration.

The additions of Syracuse and Pitt happened right around when the Big 12 was imploding with the potential creation of the Pac-16 and the Big Ten expanded to 12 with Nebraska...and seemingly open to additional expansion in the near future.

The general consensus was heading towards the idea that the era of super conferences was nigh and that a "stable" conference size was some number higher than 12. Based on that info, the ACC decided to strike first by identifying schools that they felt would be acceptable additions to the conference to try to reach that number first so that they can stabilize.

Ironically enough, it was those additions (and the collapse of the Big East) that triggered a new round of expansions for both the SEC and Big Ten and 2 years later...here we are, arguing the same points over and over on a message board despite the lack of any real realignment news in over a year

 

[NickyNewark]

Though I am not the poster you were discussing this with, it's an intriguing question that you ask. I think the root of it goes back to the 2003 expansion which was planned out in 2001 and 2002.

That expansion was supposedly going to be about football and the vision of an ACC that stretched the entire east coast from Boston to Miami. But not everyone in the ACC was on board with the plan of Miami, BC, and SU because the football powers for the most part could care less about the northeast. They want to be in an SEC like football centric conference (not a conference known for basketball). I'm sure secretly they would have preferred Miami, VT, and WVU but Swofford and the consultants sold them on a vision of what the ACC might eventually look like as a 14 or 16 team conference in the future. And to possibly attract two bigger name football targets than VT and WVU, they needed to first become a conference that can be sold as an entire Atlantic Coast Conference. Neither Rutgers nor UConn was even on the radar at that time, nor in all honesty, should they have been.

Obviously the ACC needed Miami football (at least the Miami powerhouses of the early 00s and they still do since they really haven't shown up like those teams since they went to the ACC) but they the hoped for goal down the road was ND and/or PSU. And remember, back in 2003 there was no BTN which makes the latter target now virtually untouchable but then it was at least a slight possibility - snowball's chance but still a chance. So, with JoePa's likely adamant stance against Pitt on their minds, they were probably thinking add SU and BC with Miami and see if ND and PSU bite 5-7 years down the road. If they do, then not taking VT and WVU at that time pays off big. But the football centric schools wanted the football improved right there and then. And then in steps Virginia politics and the stubbornness of UNC and Duke that basically makes the ACC SEC-lite with a northeastern satellite in Boston.

In retrospect, the football centric schools were correct to want VT since it was the Hokies addition that helped make the Miami downturn not quite an abysmal failure.

Now fast forward to 2011. Whatever pipe dreams the ACC had in 2003 are long gone. They are in an extremely weak position and their best hope for surviving was ND, even on a partial basis, getting FSU, Clemson, VT, and GT games vs ND to help offset some of the lackluster conference opponents. Which is why they chose SU and Pitt. Sure Swarbrick lambasted SU and Pitt for leaving, but a year later ND is in the ACC with a guarantee of playing 5 games a year against ACC teams and that ND has to cycle through all of the teams every three years. That's not coincidence. Might it have happened with UConn and/or Rutgers possibly. But Pitt is a semi-regular opponent for ND and SU had already scheduled a 4 game series with two of the games being at MetLife.

So, in that regard, getting ND on board and securing a better overall tv contract that at least got them close to the others - the expansion was a success. The kicker was Maryland accepting a BiG invite. The football centric schools were probably not to please with taking Pitt and SU, probably preferring WVU and Pitt. So they were in a good bargaining position at that time and likely forced Louisville (a southern schools with recent football success) over UConn.

I guess this is just a long-winded response to say, as Ben Franklin once did, "half improvised and half compromise" only this time in regard to conference expansion rather than revolutions.

Cheers,
Neil

Even as an RU fan I agree they wouldnt have been much of an add in any CR in "02" but remember this...in "91" when RU joined the OBE their were rumblings even then about the B1G which the then BE commish made sure RU was pushed through knowing how important to TV the NY/NJ Metro is to any TV relevance well before we heard much about any CR! Now looking back it was a quaint time when conferences were regional(which i miss). For reasons Im not quite sure of(PSU?) RU was always B1G oriented!?!

 

[omniorange]

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote but there is one point that I do have an issue with.

If ND was the critical piece to stabilize the ACC as you say - then wouldn't the ACC been better off just holding off for a year and sitting tight? I don't buy that the deal was a year coming and the ACC added Pitt and Syracuse with ND in mind. If you ask any ND fan you see that they don't value those matchups at all - their primary interest is access to the south and easy scheduling. The old 12 member delivered on that better than the current 14-member configuration.

The additions of Syracuse and Pitt happened right around when the Big 12 was imploding with the potential creation of the Pac-16 and the Big Ten expanded to 12 with Nebraska...and seemingly open to additional expansion in the near future.

The general consensus was heading towards the idea that the era of super conferences was nigh and that a "stable" conference size was some number higher than 12. Based on that info, the ACC decided to strike first by identifying schools that they felt would be acceptable additions to the conference to try to reach that number first so that they can stabilize.

Ironically enough, it was those additions (and the collapse of the Big East) that triggered a new round of expansions for both the SEC and Big Ten and 2 years later...here we are, arguing the same points over and over on a message board despite the lack of any real realignment news in over a year

Just a slight technical point. The ACC accepted SU and Pitt on September 19th, 2011 but the SEC accepted Texas A&M on September 9th, 2011 with the caveat that it was contingent upon no legal action from the other Big 12 schools. So who truly struck first going beyond 12, the ACC or the SEC? Seems to me it was the SEC and that the ACC was reacting to that since there was the slight possibility #14 could be an ACC school (VT, FSU, or Clemson).

So no, I don't think it would have been wise for the ACC to wait another year for ND to see how things went. I also don't think it wise for the ACC to wait on ND for expanding to 16 since that might result in some weird sort of hybrid with Navy for football only and Georgetown for all other sports. If the $$$ is there they should simply invite UConn as #16 and not wait for ND. But the $$$ (and UConn) needs to be there for that invitation to happen.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Even as an RU fan I agree they wouldnt have been much of an add in any CR in "02" but remember this...in "91" when RU joined the OBE their were rumblings even then about the B1G which the then BE commish made sure RU was pushed through knowing how important to TV the NY/NJ Metro is to any TV relevance well before we heard much about any CR! Now looking back it was a quaint time when conferences were regional(which i miss). For reasons Im not quite sure of(PSU?) RU was always B1G oriented!?!

The formation of the Big East football conference had little to do with Mike Tranghese. It was a football schools initiative - Pitt, SU, and BC. They were the ones who convinced Miami to join and they were the ones who negotiated a separate TV contract a few years later with CBS that they brought to the Big East meetings and said here is what we could have as a league to try and get leverage to have WVU, RU, and VT added as full members.

As for your latter comment, even in the early 90s it was basically only Jim Delany that believed Rutgers was, in his words, "a sleeping giant". So stop sleeping already and make it a reality.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[TerryD]

Just a slight technical point. The ACC accepted SU and Pitt on September 19th, 2011 but the SEC accepted Texas A&M on September 9th, 2011 with the caveat that it was contingent upon no legal action from the other Big 12 schools. So who truly struck first going beyond 12, the ACC or the SEC? Seems to me it was the SEC and that the ACC was reacting to that since there was the slight possibility #14 could be an ACC school (VT, FSU, or Clemson).

So no, I don't think it would have been wise for the ACC to wait another year for ND to see how things went. I also don't think it wise for the ACC to wait on ND for expanding to 16 since that might result in some weird sort of hybrid with Navy for football only and Georgetown for all other sports. If the $ is there they should simply invite UConn as #16 and not wait for ND. But the $ (and UConn) needs to be there for that invitation to happen.

Cheers,
Neil

I often have agreed, and sometimes disagreed, with Neil on Big East, CR and ACC message boards since around 2003.

I agree with him completely here. If Swofford had not snagged ND when he did, I think that the ACC would have been in big trouble. It may not have survived.

I also agree that ND will likely never join in football and if it does, you might see the Irish pushing for a combo of Navy/Georgetown as hybrid #16 ACC member(s).

 

[NickyNewark]

The formation of the Big East football conference had little to do with Mike Tranghese. It was a football schools initiative - Pitt, SU, and BC. They were the ones who convinced Miami to join and they were the ones who negotiated a separate TV contract a few years later with CBS that they brought to the Big East meetings and said here is what we could have as a league to try and get leverage to have WVU, RU, and VT added as full members.

As for your latter comment, even in the early 90s it was basically only Jim Delany that believed Rutgers was, in his words, "a sleeping giant". So stop sleeping already and make it a reality.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm of the understanding that PSU and Jopa convinced RU not to join the BE in "79" but BC,Pitt and Cuse(among others) were expected by PSU to get a smaller "cut" than the "Nits" in the all Eastern conference and refused IIRC but my memory on those events are weak now!?! Can you enlighten or refresh my memory? I'm 62 and was in my prime back then and after leaving the Corps in 72 stayed in Cali and lost touch for several years(moved back in 77) with eastern FB politics of the time but never lost my interest or eastcoast NYC/NJ pride!! We've been a sleeping giant 4ever because of wacky NY metro politics(lack of support)...will B1G money change that? Yet to be determined IMO but I'm hopeful!

 

[Kolumbo]

I often have agreed, and sometimes disagreed, with Neil on Big East, CR and ACC message boards since around 2003.

I agree with him completely here. If Swofford had not snagged ND when he did, I think that the ACC would have been in big trouble. It may not have survived.

I also agree that ND will likely never join in football and if it does, you might see the Irish pushing for a combo of Navy/Georgetown as hybrid #16 ACC member(s).

And then they will push for St. Johns and then Villanova and then...No.

 

[NickyNewark]

The formation of the Big East football conference had little to do with Mike Tranghese. It was a football schools initiative - Pitt, SU, and BC. They were the ones who convinced Miami to join and they were the ones who negotiated a separate TV contract a few years later with CBS that they brought to the Big East meetings and said here is what we could have as a league to try and get leverage to have WVU, RU, and VT added as full members.

As for your latter comment, even in the early 90s it was basically only Jim Delany that believed Rutgers was, in his words, "a sleeping giant". So stop sleeping already and make it a reality.

Cheers,
Neil

BTW I think you guys are on the way back and also think this years a turning point in you're recruiting efforts locally and nationally! I think a top 40 type class is reasonable this yr with better on the way if you win 8+ games yrly! Lets hope HCSS stays and finishes the job in this era of HC "job jumping" to perceived better jobs instead of the old fashioned pride and loyalty of past generations!

 

[pj]

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote but there is one point that I do have an issue with.

If ND was the critical piece to stabilize the ACC as you say - then wouldn't the ACC been better off just holding off for a year and sitting tight? I don't buy that the deal was a year coming and the ACC added Pitt and Syracuse with ND in mind. If you ask any ND fan you see that they don't value those matchups at all - their primary interest is access to the south and easy scheduling. The old 12 member delivered on that better than the current 14-member configuration.

The additions of Syracuse and Pitt happened right around when the Big 12 was imploding with the potential creation of the Pac-16 and the Big Ten expanded to 12 with Nebraska...and seemingly open to additional expansion in the near future.

The general consensus was heading towards the idea that the era of super conferences was nigh and that a "stable" conference size was some number higher than 12. Based on that info, the ACC decided to strike first by identifying schools that they felt would be acceptable additions to the conference to try to reach that number first so that they can stabilize.

Ironically enough, it was those additions (and the collapse of the Big East) that triggered a new round of expansions for both the SEC and Big Ten and 2 years later...here we are, arguing the same points over and over on a message board despite the lack of any real realignment news in over a year

The major factor driving the Syracuse and Pitt additions was the ACC TV contract. They had negotiated a $13 mn/year average long-term contract including all rights (Tier 3 as well) and were seeing other conferences get $20 mn+ even without giving up Tier 3. This was creating financial pressure for schools to jump ship. Their deal with ESPN had a look-in to adjust payouts if they added teams. They wanted to add teams to force a negotiated re-set of the payout closer to market.

They did these re-negotiations several times, also with the ND addition, also with the GoR. The upshot is they have given away everything they have to give to ESPN, are getting paid their market value, and can't really expect to get any more increases in payouts.

They didn't need to choose Pitt and Syracuse, but they did need to expand, or the conference could have imploded due to uncompetitive revenue.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Just a slight technical point. The ACC accepted SU and Pitt on September 19th, 2011 but the SEC accepted Texas A&M on September 9th, 2011 with the caveat that it was contingent upon no legal action from the other Big 12 schools. So who truly struck first going beyond 12, the ACC or the SEC? Seems to me it was the SEC and that the ACC was reacting to that since there was the slight possibility #14 could be an ACC school (VT, FSU, or Clemson).

So no, I don't think it would have been wise for the ACC to wait another year for ND to see how things went. I also don't think it wise for the ACC to wait on ND for expanding to 16 since that might result in some weird sort of hybrid with Navy for football only and Georgetown for all other sports. If the $ is there they should simply invite UConn as #16 and not wait for ND. But the $ (and UConn) needs to be there for that invitation to happen.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I'm still formulating a cogent response to your above posting to me, but, in the meantime, I thought I'd add my voice here. First, let me say that I've been reading your posts from the period of initial ACC raid on the Big East and like and admire your general position of choosing civility over acrimony. For that alone you deserve a free beer. Next time, tell the barkeep I said yours is on the house. Not sure it will do any good but, what the hell, probably can't hurt either.

My biggest problem with the ACC is their shortsightedness. The ACC either hasn't formulated a long term strategy that its members have bought into or they lack the confidence to execute that strategy and the result has been reactive decisions. Reactive decisions yield sub-optimized results. That history of reactive, directionless decisions may have given the ACC the exact opposite of what they sought. They may have effectively frozen themselves out of the northeast in a similar manner to the SEC freezing them out of the southeast. Should the B1G invite UConn, I just can't imagine BC, Syracuse, and Pitt presenting much competition for Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, and us.

 

[TerryD]

And then they will push for St. Johns and then Villanova and then...No.

No, just those two schools.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I often have agreed, and sometimes disagreed, with Neil on Big East, CR and ACC message boards since around 2003.

I agree with him completely here. If Swofford had not snagged ND when he did, I think that the ACC would have been in big trouble. It may not have survived.

I also agree that ND will likely never join in football and if it does, you might see the Irish pushing for a combo of Navy/Georgetown as hybrid #16 ACC member(s).

So your solution to the problems hybridization of a conference causes is more hybridization? If I said, "It sure is hot today." Your reply would be, "I know. Let's build a fire." I know you feel an obligation to toe the ND line but abandoning logic isn't the way forward.

 

[TerryD]

So your solution to the problems hybridization of a conference causes is more hybridization? If I said, "It sure is hot today." Your reply would be, "I know. Let's build a fire." I know you feel an obligation to toe the ND line but abandoning logic isn't the way forward.

What? I just don't think that "hybridization" is a problem, that is all. The problems of the Big East were many and varied. The football schools could not even agree among themselves. Everyone was looking for a way out. There were no real "anchor schools" in the conference after Miami left. The football schools were scared to use the "get out of jail free" card to split, etc...

I think that the hybrid nature of the Big East was one issue only because of the balance of power issues in a conference that began as a basketball only one.

Adding Navy for football only, Georgetown for everything else in the far fetched event that ND would join for football (and stopping there forever) would not be a big problem for the ACC, in my view.

I am pretty much agreeing with the sentiment that UConn should not count on ND joining in football for UConn to get an ACC bid. I think that UConn will have to show value/merit on its own to obtain the bid.

I don't think that ND will join the ACC for football. Additionally, I am not sure that even if ND became full member #15, it would support UConn for #16.

ND has a long history with Navy and adding that school would free up a game for OOC scheduling for ND. Adding Georgetown and Navy would partly make up for Maryland's loss and regain some ACC presence in Maryland/DC.

I think that if ND indicated that they wanted to join full time, the ACC would let ND have a lot of input on who is #16.

 

[Pat125]

I think that if ND indicated that they wanted to join full time, the ACC would let ND have a lot of input on who is #16.

Why would the other ACC presidents want to yield any amount of input to one specific potential full conference member? Whoever #16 is would be just as important to each member institution. And I'm guessing they will have enough of hybrids by then. And I'm also guessing they don't want to repeat the same type of shortsightedness when they chose Louisville over UConn.

If it wasn't about money, then ND should have either opted for independence in all sports, or join a conference that doesn't sponsor football. Or ND could form a new conference with USC, Stanford, BC, Pitt, Navy, and Georgetown.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Though I am not the poster you were discussing this with, it's an intriguing question that you ask. I think the root of it goes back to the 2003 expansion which was planned out in 2001 and 2002.

That expansion was supposedly going to be about football and the vision of an ACC that stretched the entire east coast from Boston to Miami. But not everyone in the ACC was on board with the plan of Miami, BC, and SU because the football powers for the most part could care less about the northeast. They want to be in an SEC like football centric conference (not a conference known for basketball). I'm sure secretly they would have preferred Miami, VT, and WVU but Swofford and the consultants sold them on a vision of what the ACC might eventually look like as a 14 or 16 team conference in the future. And to possibly attract two bigger name football targets than VT and WVU, they needed to first become a conference that can be sold as an entire Atlantic Coast Conference. Neither Rutgers nor UConn was even on the radar at that time, nor in all honesty, should they have been.

Obviously the ACC needed Miami football (at least the Miami powerhouses of the early 00s and they still do since they really haven't shown up like those teams since they went to the ACC) but they the hoped for goal down the road was ND and/or PSU. And remember, back in 2003 there was no BTN which makes the latter target now virtually untouchable but then it was at least a slight possibility - snowball's chance but still a chance. So, with JoePa's likely adamant stance against Pitt on their minds, they were probably thinking add SU and BC with Miami and see if ND and PSU bite 5-7 years down the road. If they do, then not taking VT and WVU at that time pays off big. But the football centric schools wanted the football improved right there and then. And then in steps Virginia politics and the stubbornness of UNC and Duke that basically makes the ACC SEC-lite with a northeastern satellite in Boston.

In retrospect, the football centric schools were correct to want VT since it was the Hokies addition that helped make the Miami downturn not quite an abysmal failure.

Now fast forward to 2011. Whatever pipe dreams the ACC had in 2003 are long gone. They are in an extremely weak position and their best hope for surviving was ND, even on a partial basis, getting FSU, Clemson, VT, and GT games vs ND to help offset some of the lackluster conference opponents. Which is why they chose SU and Pitt. Sure Swarbrick lambasted SU and Pitt for leaving, but a year later ND is in the ACC with a guarantee of playing 5 games a year against ACC teams and that ND has to cycle through all of the teams every three years. That's not coincidence. Might it have happened with UConn and/or Rutgers possibly. But Pitt is a semi-regular opponent for ND and SU had already scheduled a 4 game series with two of the games being at MetLife.

So, in that regard, getting ND on board and securing a better overall tv contract that at least got them close to the others - the expansion was a success. The kicker was Maryland accepting a BiG invite. The football centric schools were probably not to please with taking Pitt and SU, probably preferring WVU and Pitt. So they were in a good bargaining position at that time and likely forced Louisville (a southern schools with recent football success) over UConn.

I guess this is just a long-winded response to say, as Ben Franklin once did, "half improvised and half compromise" only this time in regard to conference expansion rather than revolutions.

Cheers,
Neil

Truly interesting post, Neil. Thank you for offering it. Whether the things you've alleged are true or not, I have no way of knowing, but at least they satisfy the first rule of persuasion: They sound reasonable.

I agree, much of the ACC's current woes can be sourced back to the original raid. It was ill conceived and poorly executed. I think the goal was more than laudable: A conference that stretched the full length of the Atlantic coast. The question was how to go about it.

The original targets, Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College, were, in a way, solid choices. Certainly Miami appeared to be a plum. Syracuse and Boston College fit into the targeted geography. Were they better choices than Rutgers and UConn? Yes if you were looking for something that was "move-in ready." Debatable for those willing to invest a little "sweat equity" for a greater return in the out years. That Miami had just hired a president less than thrilled with football team's reputation exacerbated the ACC's expansion risks. And the three teams in the plan all suffered the same genetic defect: small (by state flagship standards) undergraduate and alumni bases and shallow (again by flagship standards) pockets.

Fortunately, as you observed, Tech and the Virginia legislature inadvertently came to the rescue saving the conference from acquiring a complete egg facial, and the Cuse served an additional 8 years in a conference determined to preside over its own collapse.

If, as you suggest, much of the ACC was either indifferent or opposed to a northward push, why attempt it? Surely a project as enormous as capturing the entire North Atlantic seaboard would be taxing enough with everyone onboard and excited. Short of that and the sign reads "Welcome to "Risky City." Loading up on pipe dreams like attracting Notre Dame or Penn State and a reasonable person might conclude that the conference bowl and basketball tournament monies might be better invested at the crap tables in Vegas.

Trouble is, your scenarios have a ring of reasonableness to them given the ACC's aversion to the heavy lifting of conference building and penchant for easy money. I get your point about pipe dreams of 2003 being dead by 2011. Crap happens for sure, but what were the conference's contingency plans when rosy scenarios failed to materialize? More importantly, what did the conference leadership learn from the mistakes of the first raid? The other P5 conferences either learned from the ACC's problems or already realized that state flagship were the safest bet in the realignment wars. Of the most recent moves, the SEC added 4 flagships, the Pac added 2 flagships, and the Big Ten added 3 flagships. Only the B12, perhaps in even more desperate circumstances than the ACC has taken a private (TCU...and also a flagship). Only the ACC has invested heavily in privates and non-flagships. After the initial raid (2 privates and no flagships), the ACC has taken on another private (2 if you count ND) and 2 non-flagships. Including the 2003 raid, the ACC has added 7 teams none of which are flagships (and with 2 flagships readily available to them -- one still is). The other P5 conferences have added 11 teams only one of which was a non-flagship. Something about those numbers should be making the ACC uncomfortable.

Sorry to be so negative, Neil. I really am a fan.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

What? I just don't think that "hybridization" is a problem, that is all. The problems of the Big East were many and varied. The football schools could not even agree among themselves. Everyone was looking for a way out. There were no real "anchor schools" in the conference after Miami left. The football schools were scared to use the "get out of jail free" card to split, etc...

I think that the hybrid nature of the Big East was one issue only because of the balance of power issues in a conference that began as a basketball only one.

Adding Navy for football only, Georgetown for everything else in the far fetched event that ND would join for football (and stopping there forever) would not be a big problem for the ACC, in my view.

I am pretty much agreeing with the sentiment that UConn should not count on ND joining in football for UConn to get an ACC bid. I think that UConn will have to show value/merit on its own to obtain the bid.

I don't think that ND will join the ACC for football. Additionally, I am not sure that even if ND became full member #15, it would support UConn for #16.

ND has a long history with Navy and adding that school would free up a game for OOC scheduling for ND. Adding Georgetown and Navy would partly make up for Maryland's loss and regain some ACC presence in Maryland/DC.

I think that if ND indicated that they wanted to join full time, the ACC would let ND have a lot of input on who is #16.

Terry! My man! How goes the swimming against the current campaign? Just a hint for tightening up your prose: You didn't need to tell us you didn't find hybridization problematic. You're ND, the inventor of the hybrid. Of course you love it. Your logic on the Navy/Georgetown drag along should you honor the ACC with your football presence was flawless.

It's the part you glossed over that interests me, though. One of Murphy's Laws states that "Sooner or Later Everything Put Together Comes Apart." It's the things cobbled together with masking tape and Elmer's Glue, the things lacking in common goals and objectives like Notre Dame having athletic objectives apart from its conference mates, that make up the "Sooner" part of that law.

Oops, almost forgot. Notre Dame getting to select who joins shouldn't cause too much dissatisfaction among the service class. After all, royalty shouldn't be expected to serve themselves.

 

[Sea Goat]

What? I just don't think that "hybridization" is a problem, that is all. The problems of the Big East were many and varied. The football schools could not even agree among themselves. Everyone was looking for a way out. There were no real "anchor schools" in the conference after Miami left. The football schools were scared to use the "get out of jail free" card to split, etc...

I think that the hybrid nature of the Big East was one issue only because of the balance of power issues in a conference that began as a basketball only one.

Adding Navy for football only, Georgetown for everything else in the far fetched event that ND would join for football (and stopping there forever) would not be a big problem for the ACC, in my view.

I am pretty much agreeing with the sentiment that UConn should not count on ND joining in football for UConn to get an ACC bid. I think that UConn will have to show value/merit on its own to obtain the bid.

I don't think that ND will join the ACC for football. Additionally, I am not sure that even if ND became full member #15, it would support UConn for #16.

ND has a long history with Navy and adding that school would free up a game for OOC scheduling for ND. Adding Georgetown and Navy would partly make up for Maryland's loss and regain some ACC presence in Maryland/DC.

I think that if ND indicated that they wanted to join full time, the ACC would let ND have a lot of input on who is #16.

Soon enough the ACC will tire of the ND hybrid membership - they won't do another one.

Too little in it for the conference and too much in it for ND. The ACC fell for the Fighting Irish BS and won't again.
Who negotiated the deal for ND - Paul Haney?


"Hey ACC - have I got a deal for you!"

 

[freescooter]

I often have agreed, and sometimes disagreed, with Neil on Big East, CR and ACC message boards since around 2003.

I agree with him completely here. If Swofford had not snagged ND when he did, I think that the ACC would have been in big trouble. It may not have survived.

I also agree that ND will likely never join in football and if it does, you might see the Irish pushing for a combo of Navy/Georgetown as hybrid #16 ACC member(s).

Terry,
I have to say that I seriously doubt Navy/Georgetown. For a few reasons, actually. While I agree with your view that the Big East had more problems than just the hybrid, that was a very big one. I also think that if ND joins the ACC full time it will be because they are finding life as a semi-independent is much less satisfying than life as a real one. It might take a while but I wouldn't be too shocked if their fortunes fall pretty far as a result of their new mates. You start losing regularly to those guys, and lose some of your marquee matchups with Michigan, Michigan State and the like for Wake and NC State, and I'm not so sure its a great deal. ND's risk is they become just another ACC team in the public's mind. And there is a tendency to move toward the mean in conferences. Miami did it and BC did it when they joined. Va Tech has done it albeit over a longer time frame. Those 3 were the powers of the ACC when they first came in. You saw it in the ACC's dismal bowl record. Even their good teams were not match for other league's good teams. So in my view if ND joins full time it will be because they have to. As far as adding Navy, I don't see it. We're talking about a marginal program. Their wins are based on playing a lower level schedule with lots of Sun Belt and MAC teams,and also using a system that nobody else plays, which allows them to catch teams off guard. last year they played Indiana, Delaware(FCS), South Alabama (has had football since 2009!), Western Kentucky(1A since 2009), San Jose St, Middle Tennessee. Yeah, florida State is gonna sign on for that...And Georgetown is about to enter a down cycle, too. Sad to say it, because they have been a good conference mate, but they were one of the most reluctant Big East breakaway schools because they knew the result would be a downgrade in their program. And it will be.

 

[TerryD]

Terry! My man! How goes the swimming against the current campaign? Just a hint for tightening up your prose: You didn't need to tell us you didn't find hybridization problematic. You're ND, the inventor of the hybrid. Of course you love it. Your logic on the Navy/Georgetown drag along should you honor the ACC with your football presence was flawless.

It's the part you glossed over that interests me, though. One of Murphy's Laws states that "Sooner or Later Everything Put Together Comes Apart." It's the things cobbled together with masking tape and Elmer's Glue, the things lacking in common goals and objectives like Notre Dame having athletic objectives apart from its conference mates, that make up the "Sooner" part of that law.

Oops, almost forgot. Notre Dame getting to select who joins shouldn't cause too much dissatisfaction among the service class. After all, royalty shouldn't be expected to serve themselves.

Actually, the BE hybrid existed before the Big East and ACC presidents all voted to add ND despite ND's adamant statements that ND football would never join.

I think that the hybrid concept began when the Big East basketball schools decided to let in football members?

As to ND picking the #16 team, Neil mentioned it before I did. I think that the ACC would be happy for the bump in revenues and stability with ND joining that, yes, it would give a fair amount of leeway to ND's preferences.

I am not the first guy to come up with that idea. ACC fans have mentioned it often before me.

This is all hypothetical anyway as ND is not joining the ACC for football unless the playoffs are restricted to only conference champs.

 

[TerryD]

Why would the other ACC presidents want to yield any amount of input to one specific potential full conference member? Whoever #16 is would be just as important to each member institution. And I'm guessing they will have enough of hybrids by then. And I'm also guessing they don't want to repeat the same type of shortsightedness when they chose Louisville over UConn.

If it wasn't about money, then ND should have either opted for independence in all sports, or join a conference that doesn't sponsor football. Or ND could form a new conference with USC, Stanford, BC, Pitt, Navy, and Georgetown.

If it was only about the most money, ND would be a full member of the Big Ten Conference. It isn't and won't be.

 

[Pat125]

If it was only about the most money, ND would be a full member of the Big Ten Conference. It isn't and won't be.

So, perhaps it's a hybrid of money and independence? With an attempt to control conference politics mixed in?

 

[CL82]

From an all-sports perspective -

The B1G sponsors 28 conference sports. Of those 28, UConn sponsors 23. UConn also has a women's ice hockey team, which the B1G currently does not sponsor.

The sports UConn does not sponsor include:

Men's Sports - Gymnastics, Lacrosse, Wrestling
Women's Sports - Golf, Gymnastics

All 14 current B1G schools have wrestling teams and women's golf teams, so UConn would be an outlier there. For the other three sports, 7 sponsor men's gymnastics, 6 sponsor men's lacrosse, and 10 sponsor women's gymnastics.

For women's ice hockey, 4 B1G teams currently sponsor that sport, so the addition of UConn would leave the conference one team short of being able to sponsor that as a conference sport as well.

Sponsoring 23 B1G sports would tie UConn for 8th with Indiana out of the current 14 schools in the conference.

Here is a breakdown of how many of the 28 sports each B1G team sponsors.....

1. Ohio State - 28
1. Michigan - 28

3. Penn State - 27 (women's rowing)

4. Michigan State - 25 (men's gymnastics, men's lacrosse, women's lacrosse)

5. Iowa - 24 (men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, men's soccer, women's lacrosse)
5. Minnesota - 24 (men's lacrosse, men's soccer, women's field hockey, women's lacrosse)
5. Rutgers - 24 (men's gymnastics, men's ice hockey, men's swimming & diving, men's tennis)

8. Indiana - 23 (men's gymnastics, men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse)

9. Wisconsin - 22 (men's baseball, men's gymnastics, men's lacrosse, women's field hockey, women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse)

10. Illinois - 21 (men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, men's soccer, men's swimming & diving, women's field hockey, women's lacrosse, women's rowing)
10. Nebraska - 21 (men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, men's soccer, men's swimming & diving, women's field hockey, women's lacrosse, women's rowing)

12. Purdue - 20 (men's gymnastics, men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, men's soccer, women's field hockey, women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse, women's rowing)
12. Maryland - 20 (men's cross country, men's gymnastics, men's ice hockey, men's swimming & diving, men's tennis, men's indoor track & field, women's rowing, women's swimming & diving)

14. Northwestern - 18 (men's cross country, men's gymnastics, men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, men's indoor track & field, men's outdoor track & field, women's gymnastics, women's rowing, women's indoor track & field, women's outdoor track & field)

I suspect, with B1G money, we just might sponsor a few more.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

If it was only about the most money, ND would be a full member of the Big Ten Conference. It isn't and won't be.

I'm curious as to what need Notre Dame has that football independence can fill and money can't. Serious question, not just me harassing you on general principles again.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

If I'm the B1G I would count my blessings that ND has chosen to remain independent. A ND that is a full member of the ACC would've allowed the conference to go after a big-name program (which almost certainly means not UConn or RU). Most likely, the Big Ten would have been boxed in their area and forced to look West. The Big Ten knew of the population trends before everyone else but the trick was how to overcome the stubborn conservatism in the Midwest in order to move into new areas to get access to younger populations. They tried a scheduling alliance with the PAC but that didn't work out. If you don't believe me, comments from Delany and Alvarez over realignment have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Also, Frank the Tank in his blog talked about this.

That's not here and there, though. The ACC has another chance to recover some the lost opportunity.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

If I'm the B1G I would count my blessings that ND has chosen to remain independent. A ND that is a full member of the ACC would've allowed the conference to go after a big-name program (which almost certainly means not UConn or RU). Most likely, the Big Ten would have been boxed in their area and forced to look West. The Big Ten knew of the population trends before everyone else but the trick was how to overcome the stubborn conservatism in the Midwest in order to move into new areas to get access to younger populations. They tried a scheduling alliance with the PAC but that didn't work out. If you don't believe me, comments from Delany and Alvarez over realignment have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Also, Frank the Tank in his blog talked about this.

That's not here and there, though. The ACC has another chance to recover some the lost opportunity.

Hmmm...I wonder which of the SEC or B1G schools would be sportin' wood over an ACC invite.

 

[TerryD]

I'm curious as to what need Notre Dame has that football independence can fill and money can't. Serious question, not just me harassing you on general principles again.

ND sees itself as the national, Catholic university. It looks at the football program as a marketing arm of the university.

Being a national school, it has alumni and fans all over the country, not just located in a single state, region or area.

It wants to play games all over the country so that those people can come to the games and see ND play near them.

ND also recruits nationally, perhaps more than almost anyone. Its recruits come from all over.

ND wants the scheduling flexibility to play all over the country for recruiting exposure, especially in the Southeast, Southwest and California. Playing in those locations helps combat the "ND is too far away, you will never go to your son's games" negative recruiting that it encounters from Southern coaches. Besides, that is where most of the talented athletes are located.

Finally, ND's students come from all over the country. ND football is one way to market the university to those kids.



That is not me saying that. It is Jack Swarbrick, for one, saying that back in 2010:

"Our football independence is tied to the growth of the university," he said. "It goes back to 1913 when Jesse Harper was the coach. Jesse was the first coach in America to engage in a national schedule because he had to. No one in the Midwest would play him.

"In 27 days, he went to West Point, Texas, Nebraska and Christian Brothers. Won all four. It's one of the great stories in college football.

"People tend to think about (the independence) because of the NBC contract, but it's so much a part of the school's identity."



When ND rejected the Big Ten invitation in 1999, then ND president Father Edmund "Monk" Malloy said:

"The process of sharing information with the Big Ten and CIC has been of great value to Notre Dame. It encouraged us to consider a variety of issues integral to our pursuit of academic and athletic excellence, as well as to our distinct mission as a Catholic university. We have great respect for both the academic stature and the athletic integrity of the Big Ten universities.

Why, then, not take the ultimate step in partnership and become a member of the Big Ten? That answer, in the end result, transcends the many individual factors, academic and athletic, that weigh either for or against conference affiliation. Ultimately, the answer lies in the institutional identity of Notre Dame, its overarching definition. Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics—Catholic, private, independent."


In its 127 years of playing college football, ND has never been a member of a football conference. It has always been a football independent.

That is its status, identity, history and tradition.

Even with a five game ACC commitment, independence gives ND the ability to schedule games all over the country. More so than any conference team.

So, it is about identity, national schedule, national recruiting and other things that money cannot fulfill or buy.

Sorry for the long response, but you asked.

 

[Adios]

So BC is going to become ND's biggest rival now?