ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[longtimefan]

These are the current 3 perms. I doubt much will change for this. We are more likely to see one team added to each.

BC- Miami, Pitt, SU
Clemson- FSU, GA Tech, NC State (add Wake?)
Duke- UNC, NC State, Wake (add GA Tech?)
FSU- Clemson, Miami, SU (keep SU or add BC?)
GA Tech- Clemson, Louisville, Wake (add Duke?)
Louisville- GA Tech, Miami, UVA
Miami- BC, FSU, Louisville (add Pitt?)
UNC- Duke, NC State, UVA (add Wake?)
NC State- Clemson, Duke, UNC (add Wake?)
Pitt- BC, SU, VA Tech (add Miami?)
SU- BC, FSU, Pitt (just don't add Louisville)
UVA- Louisville, UNC, VA Tech
VA Tech- Pitt, UVA, Wake (add Miami?)
Wake- Duke, GA Tech, VA Tech (add Clemson, UNC, NC State?)


That is your starting template. There won't be a lot changed from those. The bold are the games that I think definitely stay. Then you will need to add some of the teams to Cal, Stanford, SMU.

Re: FSU as a "permanent" SU opponent--

FSU president went public confirming that they were lobbying for a regular opponent in the Northeast because of their large alumni base up here. Considering the way they have whined, demanded a larger piece of the pie, and made it abundantly clear they will leave the conference as soon as it is feasible, why should the ACC do them any favors? Give them the worst matchups you can come up with.

 

[baggerbob]

From a practical standpoint, pairing Syracuse and Stanford does not make sense. There are no direct flights. Half the ACC schools have direct flights to San Fran, including Raleigh, so I think Stanford's rivals should all be schools with direct flights.

I think we should be paired with SMU instead (Syracuse does have a direct flight to Dallas). It would save a lot of money and be a lot easier on the athletes.

The only school in the ACC that I wouldn't mind never Playing is FSU, let them play BC and Pitt. We have nothing in common with them in any way.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Re: FSU as a "permanent" SU opponent--

FSU president went public confirming that they were lobbying for a regular opponent in the Northeast because of their large alumni base up here. Considering the way they have whined, demanded a larger piece of the pie, and made it abundantly clear they will leave the conference as soon as it is feasible, why should the ACC do them any favors? Give them the worst matchups you can come up with.

That is very true.


If we break it down by location...

Louisville
No reason to have them yearly. Not a good location. Not a like school. No real history.

UVA/VA Tech
We really should have one of these two as a perm. But not both. Four games in 6 years is enough. UVA makes more sense IMO. A tad closer. More similar athletically and fanbase wise. We have a history with VA Tech but the 90s and 00s aren't coming back for either program.

UNC/NC State/Duke/Wake
We don't want any of these schools. Four trips in 6 years is plenty. No need to play there every year by having a perm.

Clemson/GA Tech
Two games in 6 years is probably enough for the area. We don't really need four.

FSU/Miami
Only 2 games in 6 years is a bit light. Would be better to have four. Then again we could play OOC vs a Fla school to make up for it. Playing FSU yearly makes little sense.

Stanford/Cal
Two games in 6 years is enough for the area. We don't need four. That is a long trip for the players to recover from. Our West Coast alumni have a game every 3 years vs 0.0 they get now. Having two in 3 years is greedy.

SMU
I think it would be too hard to be a real player in Texas recruiting. One game in 6 years is probably enough to get a random kid. We have in the past with zero games. Having three games in 6 years won't open the flood gates.


So I think it has to be BC, Pitt, a VA school, and then one of Miami, GA Tech, or SMU. If it is GA Tech or SMU we should schedule OOC USF or FAU to get a 3rd Fla game over that 6 year period.

I think anyone else as a perm would be bad for the program.

 

[sutomcat]

I thought that the football teams traveled by charter flights. If so, what difference does it make if there are direct flights between cities or not?

I am still not convinced the soccer teams travels by charter flights. Or women's lacrosse, field hockey or softball. I will flat out say there is no way this is the case.

Even for the sports that do usually fly via charter, I am pretty sure it is far more expensive to charter a flight to San Francisco than to say Charlottesville. And I suspect that teams that normally travel by charter might take commercial flights if the cost to do so is significantly less than chartering. Which it will be for flying to San Francisco.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[longtimefan]

I am still not convinced the soccer teams travels by charter flights. Or women's lacrosse, field hockey or softball. I will flat out say there is no way this is the case.

Even for the sports that do usually fly via charter, I am pretty sure it is far more expensive to charter a flight to San Francisco than to say Charlottesville. And I suspect that teams that normally travel by charter might take commercial flights if the cost to do so is significantly less than chartering. Which it will be for flying to San Francisco.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

Has there been any indication as to when the schedule will be announced? Or will it be the regular January unveiling? Or might there be something before the unveiling--something that would reveal the system (4-4-4-4, etal) and the permanent opponents?

 

[SU94]

There are many catholic prep schools everywhere producing good talent. BC really shouldn't have any problem recruiting, their problem is institutional as far as high level collegiate sports go. They really should go FCS for football.

Listen, I dislike BC as much as anyone here (don't forget that!!!).

But why should they go down a level? Simply because one administration has arguably deemphasized their commitment to big time college football? Or they have made a series of questionable/terrible HC hires?

Could not the same have been said of SU about 10-12 years ago? Almost every program has ebbs and flows.

Alabama has won 4 games or less twice this millennium.
And BC was ranked No. 2 in the country in Oct. of 2007.
(the damn Eagles won 8 or more games in 9 straight seasons from 2001-09).

But they should drop down?
I swear, some poster here must believe college football began in 2015.

 

[qdawgg]

I don’t know if this guy is right or not, just seems like a real bold move for him to put this out so confidently. I hope it’s not true.

He’s just reiterating what was said about Clemson and FSU a couple months ago or so. Reading his replies to other comments, it seems like he’s got no source and just looking for clicks.

 

[WoadBlue]

Listen, I dislike BC as much as anyone here (don't forget that!!!).

But why should they go down a level? Simply because one administration has arguably deemphasized their commitment to big time college football? Or they have made a series of questionable/terrible HC hires?

Could not the same have been said of SU about 10-12 years ago? Almost every program has ebbs and flows.

Alabama has won 4 games or less twice this millennium.
And BC was ranked No. 2 in the country in Oct. of 2007.
(the damn Eagles won 8 or more games in 9 straight seasons from 2001-09).

But they should drop down?
I swear, some poster here must believe college football began in 2015.

It's not that simple. Its first and foremost the fact that nobody in New England seems to have the slightest interest in Major College football. In that region, more people keep up with the Ivy League football standings than they follow BC and the ACC standings. And BC basketball delivers even less - meaning that BC cannot ever be of any value to the ACC in what pays the bills: fans watching on TV because of BC playing.

And then there is the fact of no talent coming out of New England. No fans of Major College football, and not enough top level recruits to staff even 1 school in a G5 that can have winning record against D1 foes.

 

[NKR1978]

Just think about this...

-Why would ESPN want to pay more money for content that they already own long term? In the future, sure but not now.

-Clemson in the ACC is worth more to ESPN than Clemson in the SEC. In one conference they are just another team. In the other they elevate interest in the game and make it marketable. Why would ESPN want to devalue the ACC now?

-ESPN owns Clemson's TV rights, so they cannot go to the B18.

-Why would the SEC want Clemson? They don't get more money. It makes it harder for every team to make the playoffs. It makes it harder to recruit GA and FLA.


So who besides benefits besides just Clemson? ESPN is worse off, as is the SEC.

The Clemson and FSU fans are delusional thinking ESPN will help them leave. I have a hunch that the ACC is a big source of profit for Disney. It really is undervalued for what it brings in. They also apparently think Disney lawyers are idiots.

 

[SU94]

It's not that simple. Its first and foremost the fact that nobody in New England seems to have the slightest interest in Major College football. In that region, more people keep up with the Ivy League football standings than they follow BC and the ACC standings. And BC basketball delivers even less - meaning that BC cannot ever be of any value to the ACC in what pays the bills: fans watching on TV because of BC playing.

And then there is the fact of no talent coming out of New England. No fans of Major College football, and not enough top level recruits to staff even 1 school in a G5 that can have winning record against D1 foes.

All of your assertions are hyperbole. "Nobody has interest ...", "more people keep up with Ivy League football ...", "BC basketball delivers even less ...", "fact that no talent comes out of New England ..."

Sorry, that is just all just poppycock (aka southern fried drivel).
Painting with a broad brush.

Are there some recent (as in the last 15-20 years) negative/downward trends? Yes, there are. Could say similar things about Syracuse and CNY. But what is happening in, say, Arkansas that is so great? Higher concentrations of fans (yes). Well, the population of Massachusetts alone is 2.35x that of Arkansas. And that does not even include Connecticut, RI, and the others.

Don't make me defend BC athletics or BC football, please.
But to say it has to go away (which was the initial assertion)? The demise of CFB in the northeast is greatly exaggerated, most often with bunk like this.

 

[NKR1978]

All of your assertions are hyperbole. "Nobody has interest ...", "more people keep up with Ivy League football ...", "BC basketball delivers even less ...", "fact that no talent comes out of New England ..."

Sorry, that is just all just poppycock (aka southern fried drivel).
Painting with a broad brush.

Are there some recent (as in the last 15-20 years) negative/downward trends? Yes, there are. Could say similar things about Syracuse and CNY. But what is happening in, say, Arkansas that is so great? Higher concentrations of fans (yes). Well, the population of Massachusetts alone is 2.35x that of Arkansas. And that does not even include Connecticut, RI, and the others.

Don't make me defend BC athletics or BC football, please.
But to say it has to go away (which was the initial assertion)? The demise of CFB in the northeast is greatly exaggerated, most often with bunk like this.

I agree with you. It's been a long time now, but when they had the Matt Ryan years their stadium was packed every week and they were a draw. Boston will never turn out for a loser, but they'll get on the bandwagon if BC ever gets serious. They're unique to be a great academic school in a world class city. There aren't that many schools that can say that.

Enough defending that school.

 

[Toga]

It's not that simple. Its first and foremost the fact that nobody in New England seems to have the slightest interest in Major College football. In that region, more people keep up with the Ivy League football standings than they follow BC and the ACC standings. And BC basketball delivers even less - meaning that BC cannot ever be of any value to the ACC in what pays the bills: fans watching on TV because of BC playing.

And then there is the fact of no talent coming out of New England. No fans of Major College football, and not enough top level recruits to staff even 1 school in a G5 that can have winning record against D1 foes.

The Yankee Conference would like a word.

 

[CousCuse]

Listen, I dislike BC as much as anyone here (don't forget that!!!).

But why should they go down a level? Simply because one administration has arguably deemphasized their commitment to big time college football? Or they have made a series of questionable/terrible HC hires?

Could not the same have been said of SU about 10-12 years ago? Almost every program has ebbs and flows.

Alabama has won 4 games or less twice this millennium.
And BC was ranked No. 2 in the country in Oct. of 2007.
(the damn Eagles won 8 or more games in 9 straight seasons from 2001-09).

But they should drop down?
I swear, some poster here must believe college football began in 2015.

They don't have any following, they don't bring any value to an FBS conference.

 

[Orangefizz]

Was this proposed by a Syracuse alum or a VPI alum? IT'S FANTASTIC!

I think VPI loves this plan too.

I see two oddball matches in here:
Clemson-Wake
BC-Louisville

I'd switch it to be:
Clemson-Louisville
BC-Wake

Just so I understand: all teams play outside their "4" once every 3 years. 6 years is for home and away cycle. Right?

EDIT to also change NC State:

NC State-FSU
Clemson-Wake
BC-Louisville
>>change to:
NC State-Clemson
BC-Wake
Louisville-FSU

Personally, I like 2+7/7 better since we can play every team in 2 years vs 3 years. Of course, it would require 9 conference games instead of 8.

 

[NKR1978]

They don't have any following, they don't bring any value to an FBS conference.

People say the same about us. Most of the college sports world thinks we'll be left on the outside.

 

[CousCuse]

People say the same about us. Most of the college sports world thinks we'll be left on the outside.

Syracuse has had a solid following for the past 20 years which been one of the worst periods on the field in its history. This Saturdays game against Clemson will generate solid viewership. That's not mentioning the basketball brand which still is a top 10. The last time I remeber BC having an exciting basketball teal was with Mike Adams. I think Syracuse beating Purdue twice has people in the B1G giving Syracuse another look.

 

[upperdeck]

I am still not convinced the soccer teams travels by charter flights. Or women's lacrosse, field hockey or softball. I will flat out say there is no way this is the case.

Even for the sports that do usually fly via charter, I am pretty sure it is far more expensive to charter a flight to San Francisco than to say Charlottesville. And I suspect that teams that normally travel by charter might take commercial flights if the cost to do so is significantly less than chartering. Which it will be for flying to San Francisco.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

I thought the new deal was done it a way to cover the travel cost issues for the non revenue teams?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Personally, I like 2+7/7 better since we can play every team in 2 years vs 3 years. Of course, it would require 9 conference games instead of 8.

Can’t have 9 conference games with 17 teams.

 

[Franz69]

Anybody know if Syracuse is planning on getting AAU status back in case the ACC dissolves at some point and we need to try to land in the B1G?

 

[Stevenson]

Anybody know if Syracuse is planning on getting AAU status back in case the ACC dissolves at some point and we need to try to land in the B1G?

They voted 7-5 not to at the last Water Buffalo’s meeting.

#sad

 

[CuseGrad94]

They voted 7-5 not to at the last Water Buffalo’s meeting.

#sad

They people never make the right decision

 

[NKR1978]

Syracuse has had a solid following for the past 20 years which been one of the worst periods on the field in its history. This Saturdays game against Clemson will generate solid viewership. That's not mentioning the basketball brand which still is a top 10. The last time I remeber BC having an exciting basketball teal was with Mike Adams. I think Syracuse beating Purdue twice has people in the B1G giving Syracuse another look.

I hope you're right and it's enough to get us a soft landing.

 

[CousCuse]

I hope you're right and it's enough to get us a soft landing.

The investment into the facilities I think is noticed by a lot of people. It could be a deciding factor, I think that's JW's strategy.

 

[Franz69]

They voted 7-5 not to at the last Water Buffalo’s meeting.

#sad

What's the argument against being an AAU member?

 

[Orangefizz]

Can’t have 9 conference games with 17 teams.

Yes you can. If you have two permanent rivals then you rotate the other 14 teams over two years (7/7)