Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SU94, post: 4620659, member: 202"] Likely an unpopular opinion of mine: One of the reasons that SU had largely struggled since joining the ACC is simple geography. Most (most!) schools that traditionally anchor or dominate or win the most in power conferences are the schools that are centered within the league’s geographic footprint. There are many examples (and to be fair some exceptions too), including UNC hoops, Duke hoops, USC football, Nebraska football (Big 8, Big 12), UCLA hoops, Bama football, Kansas basketball (Big 8), Clemson football (present day ACC), Syracuse basketball (Big East). Maybe centered is too strong. Maybe “not on the perimeter of the conference” is better. As stated, there are some exceptions, like Arizona hoops, Miami football (Big East) and even Ohio State football (Big 10 before PSU, Maryland, Rutgers added). FSU football during before ACC expansion in 2003. Again, not saying this is some sort of universal law or anything that strong. But when you can attract students, athletes and fans from many directions (360 degrees), it greatly helps. I think SU went from being ostensibly the heartbeat of the Big East to the Neptune of the ACC. And please note that I am absolutely a proponent of Syracuse’s ACC membership. Had to do it. Unwilling to sacrifice football to maintain Big East rivalries. I just think it is always going to be harder for SU, with this being one of the main reasons. And I think it is also why most schools have struggled with conference expansion: SU, Nebraska, Colorado, South Carolina, BC, West Virginia, Maryland, Arkansas (they were on the perimeter of the Big 12 too), Mizzou. There are undeniably other factors involved, but this is a working theory of mine. And, at least in my view, college sports peaked when there were 7-8 power conferences of 7-10 teams apiece. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?