Like previously stated, ACC expansion was not about 'brands' | The Boneyard
.

Like previously stated, ACC expansion was not about 'brands'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,992
Reaction Score
140,683
It was about removing a rival.

The Boston Globe has put that argument to bed.
 
But has the rival been removed or merely wounded? If the BEast somehow retains it's BCS status, it still lives.
 
In terms of competing for ESPN's money and such, it's effectively been removed.
 
In terms of competing for ESPN's money and such, it's effectively been removed.

We'll have to see about that. Maybe ESPN won't bid high enough on it but that doesn't mean that other TV providers will not. A conference with all 3 service academies and other quality programs in large markets combined with still having the number 1 or 2 best bball conference will still equal money for us. Houston and SMU have arguably the same amount of Football history as Cuse and Pitt and are in much better recruiting territory. Our football product could be better than the ACC's 5 years from now. That is not some wildy optimistic expression it is a fact.
 
We'll have to see about that. Maybe ESPN won't bid high enough on it but that doesn't mean that other TV providers will not. A conference with all 3 service academies and other quality programs in large markets combined with still having the number 1 or 2 best bball conference will still equal money for us. Houston and SMU have arguably the same amount of Football history as Cuse and Pitt and are in much better recruiting territory. Our football product could be better than the ACC's 5 years from now. That is not some wildy optimistic expression it is a fact.

Haven't Army and Navy said no to the BE already?
 
No. They just want to make sure it is has reasonable stability first.
 
Haven't Army and Navy said no to the BE already?

Army indicated that they were not too eager to go back to any conference and Navy wants the BE to get their house in order before they commit to anything.
 
Army left CUSA because they couldn't compete. Why would they try to take a theoretical step up in class. They can put together a schedule that gives them a reasonable chance to get to .500 and make a bowl. That won't happen in a conference other than the MAC.
 
Army left CUSA because they couldn't compete. Why would they try to take a theoretical step up in class. They can put together a schedule that gives them a reasonable chance to get to .500 and make a bowl. That won't happen in a conference other than the MAC.

I think the only reason they would do it would be for the opportunity to play in a conference with Navy and Air Force. It would make their games against them much more meaningful. I think Army is a longshot though, but Navy and Air Force for Football is a good start if we can pull it off.
 
there is something not adding up, and it bothers me. the article mentions something that has been out there in a number of other sources, the premise that pitt going to the B12 was the catalyst that set the acc in motion. assuming that this (the b12 in the northeast) concerned the ACC - how do they know that the B12 won't move on to Rutgers and UCONN?

i am sure there is a logical explanation for how the acc can be confident this won't happen (travel distance, value of ru/uconn football to big12), but i think it is clear that this is a very real threat to them.
 
Army just got beat by Miami. That's Miami of Ohio - a MAC taem. And yes I know last week UCONN got beat by a MAC team. Doesn't do much for keeping the Big East (or whatever we'll be called) BCS bid. Just saying.
 
Army just got beat by Miami. That's Miami of Ohio - a MAC taem. And yes I know last week UCONN got beat by a MAC team. Doesn't do much for keeping the Big East (or whatever we'll be called) BCS bid. Just saying.

I think those that think the service academies would help keep the BCS bid is because of the potential that Congress would get interested if they took it away, not because they help with actual on field results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
286
Guests online
4,449
Total visitors
4,735

Forum statistics

Threads
164,535
Messages
4,400,550
Members
10,214
Latest member
illini2013


.
..
Top Bottom