Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="shantydaze, post: 9372, member: 666"] The B1G, SEC, and Pac-10 were (are) all regional conferences with shared revenue plans, a shared history, and similar institutions. This has allowed rivalries and conference (geographic) pride to develop. The problem with the B12 was (1) its unequal revenue sharing plan and (2) and not preserving the some of the former rivalries like Nebraska and Oklahoma. This left a bad taste in Nebraska's mouth when it no longer was the dominant program in the B12 and saw it revenues shrink. The Big East suffered from a similar fate. One of the public reasons Miami gave for leaving the Big East was the shared revenue plan in place at the ACC. Like Nebraska, it had no problem with the Big East's revenue sharing plan when it was on top. Once it was placed on probation and no longer was winning the conference, however, it changed its tune. Further, the Big East was and is a conference of convenience. The schools did not share a similar academic vision or focus. Nothing bound them together other than athletics, which made it easier for schools to leave. Also, adding a team like TCU (or Miami originally) creates geographic confusion. When I was in Miami in the early 90s, the only game we cared about was FSU. My understanding was that in the 80s, ND was also on the list of hated rivals. What was not on the list - a Big East team. Again, one of the reasons Miami was able to leave the conference without a second glance. An expanded ACC would have a shared revenue plan, reunite schools with some history, and make sense geographically. I agree this could be a great conference in both football and basketball. The problem for SU is that it is a basketball school. It has stronger basketball rivalries with basketball onlies then rivalries with football schools. This makes it difficult for some to see the benefits of making the jump. [/QUOTE]

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