Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 4706960, member: 44"] I'm going to disagree. It's at different things at different times. Miami, BC, Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC was about taking pieces from your competitor. For that round it didn't particularly matter which piece. Thus, there's a plan for the second wave with Syracuse and UConn substituting Pittsburgh was fine. Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten was about geography and population. Rutgers was never a world beater, but school was located in the New York DMA which allowed the Big Ten to earn a dollar per household in the country's most desirable marketing area. Plus part of New Jersey having the population density of New Delhi didn't hurt either. Louisville to the ACC was a power-play by FSU and Clemson who were tired of tobacco Road in their basketball centric viewpoint controlling the conference. Initially, again, that was slated to be Connecticut. What is, potentially, different about this round, is that Yormark is specifically targeting basketball prowess which is clearly Connecticut's strong point, arguably better than anyone else in the nation. Geography matters as well and being located in the greater NYC metroplex is a plus for us. Who knows what will happen this round, but the notion that there is one specific formula for conference realignment success is a fallacy. Conferences expand as they have need and the need is unique to each conference and each moment in time. [/QUOTE]