Is BC an inspiration or a cautionary tale?

[billsin01]

So I will preface this entire post by saying that I think SU did what it felt it had to do in an attempt to be proactive in what feels like a drastically changing NCAA landscape. What's more, I applaud them for actually being proactive and very professional (i.e. quiet) about it.

That said, I'm still wondering what, exactly we gained with this move? Yes, I could conceivably travel easily to charlottesville (great town) and college park for games and yes, the road trips to charlottesville and UNC would be filled with girls very easy on the eyes. BUT, can anyone name an established program that has really, truly benefited from joining a conference?

IT's an honest question. Take a look at BC:

Good football program when it joined the ACC, now is 15-16 in it's last 31, with 5 wins over non-BCS schools and another over a rebuilding Cuse team last fall. They also needed 5 straight wins (3 by 6 points or less) to get to 7 wins and a bowl last season.

Good hoops program when it joined the ACC (25-5 the year before moving to the ACC, 28-8, sweet 16 in year 1 in the ACC). In the last five years they have not won more than 22 games, falling short of the NCAA tourney in 3 of those seasons.

How about Penn State?
Joined the Big 10 fresh off a 15 year stretch in which the football program had two national titles and six other teams that won 11 games. In 18 years in the Big 10, they had the year in '94 when they probably should have been national champs, but then just 4 teams with two or fewer losses and 10 finishes of 4th or lower in the Big 10. Basketball-wise, let's not even discuss. Are they better off in the Big 10?

How about Temple?
Expelled from the Big East, Temple couldn't beat anyone. Ever. Now, after receiving what we all thought was a death knell for the program, they have won 19 of their last 26 football games with two losses to Penn State by a combined 13 points. They're fine and would probably give our beloved Orange plenty of trouble these days.

I don't know how this whole thing works out, but I'm just not sure the grass is truly greener. I don't think it helps hoops recruiting and think it only marginally helps football recruiting. I think it hurts interest in the hoops team due to the loss long-standing rivalries. I don't think it charges up attendance at the dome. I don't think the TV money will be anywhere near what people think (BC has been receiving it for 8 years and it's done nothing in terms of results).

It's nice to be on high ground, but I'm just not sure this conference is anymore built to last than the one we just left.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

BC's problems have little to do with the ACC and a lot to do with their coaching problems. They took the "high and mighty" approach with Tom O'Brien and it backfired big time. Spazo, or whatever his name is, is by comparison a Greg Robinson look-alike incompetent. Their former Bball coach (Al ?) was great. He hit a rough patch and they canned him. Same problem as with their Fball coach.

I should add that BC has been to bowls 13 years IN A ROW. I think we would kill for that...

So I will preface this entire post by saying that I think SU did what it felt it had to do in an attempt to be proactive in what feels like a drastically changing NCAA landscape. What's more, I applaud them for actually being proactive and very professional (i.e. quiet) about it.

That said, I'm still wondering what, exactly we gained with this move? Yes, I could conceivably travel easily to charlottesville (great town) and college park for games and yes, the road trips to charlottesville and UNC would be filled with girls very easy on the eyes. BUT, can anyone name an established program that has really, truly benefited from joining a conference?

IT's an honest question. Take a look at BC:

Good football program when it joined the ACC, now is 15-16 in it's last 31, with 5 wins over non-BCS schools and another over a rebuilding Cuse team last fall. They also needed 5 straight wins (3 by 6 points or less) to get to 7 wins and a bowl last season.

Good hoops program when it joined the ACC (25-5 the year before moving to the ACC, 28-8, sweet 16 in year 1 in the ACC). In the last five years they have not won more than 22 games, falling short of the NCAA tourney in 3 of those seasons.

How about Penn State?
Joined the Big 10 fresh off a 15 year stretch in which the football program had two national titles and six other teams that won 11 games. In 18 years in the Big 10, they had the year in '94 when they probably should have been national champs, but then just 4 teams with two or fewer losses and 10 finishes of 4th or lower in the Big 10. Basketball-wise, let's not even discuss. Are they better off in the Big 10?

How about Temple?
Expelled from the Big East, Temple couldn't beat anyone. Ever. Now, after receiving what we all thought was a death knell for the program, they have won 19 of their last 26 football games with two losses to Penn State by a combined 13 points. They're fine and would probably give our beloved Orange plenty of trouble these days.

I don't know how this whole thing works out, but I'm just not sure the grass is truly greener. I don't think it helps hoops recruiting and think it only marginally helps football recruiting. I think it hurts interest in the hoops team due to the loss long-standing rivalries. I don't think it charges up attendance at the dome. I don't think the TV money will be anywhere near what people think (BC has been receiving it for 8 years and it's done nothing in terms of results).

It's nice to be on high ground, but I'm just not sure this conference is anymore built to last than the one we just left.

 

[All4SU]

BC was always middle-of-the-pack in the old BE too. The fact that they still are in the ACC should not be a surprise to anyone, and certainly doesn't suggest a cause and effect.

 

[billsin01]

BC was always middle-of-the-pack in the old BE too. The fact that they still are in the ACC should not be a surprise to anyone, and certainly doesn't suggest a cause and effect.

I guess my question is this: If the money is so important why are they not getting results. Or, more relevant to us, if the money is so important are we to expect a return to the glory years of Cuse football as a direct result of this move? My stance is that money is nice but, as the Red Sox are proving quite nicely as the Rays close in, in no way does it necessarily make your programs that much better. I also wonder if this hurts hoops a bit.

 

[kingtidge]

BC's problems stem from a couple primary issues:

1. Like NY, Boston is a pro sports town. BC never had strong local support and what they did have in that respect defininitely took a hit when they lost their traditional rivalries in the ACC move... Not to mention their stadium - which is an absolute logistical deterrent to garnering local support... The rail stops, the hike through the million $$ house neighborhood cop gauntlet, no beer, etc... for your destination... an outdoor stadium built in the '50's with field turf.

2. Basketball: Skinner definitely lost his edge recruiting and once Dudley and Smith were gone, never really recovered it back.

I don't think we echo those problems at all... Syracuse is the only game in town for Cuse sports and Boeheim is a legend... He'll be able to continue to recruit well in the ACC - especially since we've always recruited well in the mid-atlantic.

 

[All4SU]

I guess my question is this: If the money is so important why are they not getting results. Or, more relevant to us, if the money is so important are we to expect a return to the glory years of Cuse football as a direct result of this move? My stance is that money is nice but, as the Red Sox are proving quite nicely as the Rays close in, in no way does it necessarily make your programs that much better. I also wonder if this hurts hoops a bit.

Well, certainly joining a new conference doesn't automatically make a program better. Too many variables. But as other examples -- USF joined a conference, and they certainly improved. Ditto Cincy.

 

[billsin01]

Well, certainly joining a new conference doesn't automatically make a program better. Too many variables. But as other examples -- USF joined a conference, and they certainly improved. Ditto Cincy.

Cincy is a decent example, though I still think their facilities are supposed to be terrible so I'm not sure it was as much money as good solid hires of up-and-coming coaches (Dantonio, then Kelly). But yeah, the BE helped them. USF basically wasn't in existence -- simply starting a program at a huge school based in S. Florida was a much larger part of their growth than the alliance with the BE. Hard to believe they couldn't have done every bit as well in C-USA or somewhere.

 

[MCuse44]

I think the idea is to be in total east coast conference with instituations of great academic and athletic strength that are all committed to an EQUAL and SIMILAR DIRECTION.

A good future is in the ACC.

 

[elimunelson]

BC was ready to make the jump with Tom Coughlin. That team beat us in 93, beat #1 ND, was becoming a force. He left and they have become a middle of the pack type product. I'd kill for that btw b/c they always field a competitive team. I was a season ticket holder b/c i live near the stadium and enjoy college football and rooted for BC before I went to Syracuse in the early 90s so i saw this up close for many a year.

They are a success story IMO going to the ACC b/c their recruiting has been solid, the team itself has been solid and the bowl games keep coming. Remember they were like 3rd in the nation until they lost to FSU on a very rainy night in the mid 2000s with Matt Ryan. That team should have been in a BCS game.

Also academically, their ranking has gone way up since they moved to the ACC. I know US News is a very inexact science but they are a low 30s ranked school. I recall in the mid 90s when I was in school, Syracuse and BC were similarly ranked.

 

[Scooch]

Small sample size.

BC has never been of SU's caliber in either hoops (obviously) or football (we've had MUCH bigger highs and more of them). They also have a history of terrible coaching hires (Dan Henning, anyone). And yet, in 6 years they've been to 2 ACC Championship games.

The fact that Penn State still has the same coach who was coaching them when LBJ was in office might be as good a reason for their lack of national title contention that the conference they play in.

Temple is Temple, let's not get carried away.

 

[rrlbees]

BC was always middle-of-the-pack in the old BE too. The fact that they still are in the ACC should not be a surprise to anyone, and certainly doesn't suggest a cause and effect.

If memory serves me right they were never higher than 3rd in the BE. Or were they also in that 3 way tie?

 

[Bayside44]

I guess my question is this: If the money is so important why are they not getting results. Or, more relevant to us, if the money is so important are we to expect a return to the glory years of Cuse football as a direct result of this move? My stance is that money is nice but, as the Red Sox are proving quite nicely as the Rays close in, in no way does it necessarily make your programs that much better. I also wonder if this hurts hoops a bit.

Without money you die.

How would this hurt hoops? UNC, Duke, Maryland?

 

[Madbiker]

I think the move to the ACC will only help in football recruiting. There could be some potential negative aspects for b-ball. SU has done a terrific job with branding us NY's college team. We get huge coverage in NYC...more than UConn and way more than RU. If Big East basketball continues, especially if UConn is still in conference, we may take a big loss in NYC media exposure. The media will just focus on BE hoops and if we lose that media exposure while it wouldn't hurt us immediately it might have a negative effect over time.

 

[Mike]

Moving from the BE to the ACC has not hurt Virginia Tech.

 

[GoSU96]

And yet, in 6 years they've been to 2 ACC Championship games.

quote]

How exactly is that a failure?

SU to the ACC is a no brainer for football. Will actully add traditional opponents back to the schedule, actually makes more regional sense.

 

[Chip]

BC football was doing quite well in the ACC. But BC also doesn't believe in paying it's coaches very much. Cost them Jags, and they just hired from within. And if there was any thought to the BC outpost issue being a reason they could struggle in any way recruiting, well that wouldn't apply to us. SU, Pitt, BC, Maryland, all geographically well positioned. Even the Virginia schools aren't that far away.

Penn State has a couple top 5 finishes. I think as the old man has gotten older, things have been a little more challenging in Happy Valley. Pitt's recruiting resurgance under Wanny probably had some impact as well.

This move should make SU better all the way around. If not, I think you look at the individual circumstances and it will be hard to say that ACC was the primary reason.

 

[Millhouse]

Small sample size.

BC has never been of SU's caliber in either hoops (obviously) or football (we've had MUCH bigger highs and more of them). They also have a history of terrible coaching hires (Dan Henning, anyone). And yet, in 6 years they've been to 2 ACC Championship games.

The fact that Penn State still has the same coach who was coaching them when LBJ was in office might be as good a reason for their lack of national title contention that the conference they play in.

Temple is Temple, let's not get carried away.

For the original poster - How about Oklahoma and Texas? Leaving the SWC worked out ok for them.

 

[JOC44]

Virginia Tech benefited by jumping to the Big East, where it found a platform for growing its football program. BC's move to the ACC failed because of the reasons others have stated (coaching issues, not that good to begin with), but also because it was orphaned as the only northeast school in the conference. By contrast, we will have BC and Pitt in the northern end of the conference with us, so (unlike BC when it joined) Maryland is the third-closest conference rival and not the closest.

 

[elimunelson]

If memory serves me right they were never higher than 3rd in the BE. Or were they also in that 3 way tie?

I thought they were one of the 4-2 teams in 2004. After all, it was the game they all wore sombreros to Alumni Stadium and we throttled them. Fun game that day.

 

[elimunelson]

Virginia Tech benefited by jumping to the Big East, where it found a platform for growing its football program. BC's move to the ACC failed because of the reasons others have stated (coaching issues, not that good to begin with), but also because it was orphaned as the only northeast school in the conference. By contrast, we will have BC and Pitt in the northern end of the conference with us, so (unlike BC when it joined) Maryland is the third-closest conference rival and not the closest.

BC has benefited financially, athletically and academically. Trust me it was a grand slam for the university. They are ecstatic we are joining b/c we are kissing cousins geographically speaking but it was already a grand slam before our arrival for them.

The coaching issue with Jags was because he was sniffing around NFL jobs and Gene D canned him. They made the wrong call on Spaz who is not a head coach. They will fix that with an up and comer type when Spaz is put out to pasture. IF they lose this weekend to Umass, it could be as soon as Monday.

 

[rrlbees]

I thought they were one of the 4-2 teams in 2004. After all, it was the game they all wore sombreros to Alumni Stadium and we throttled them. Fun game that day.

That's what my second question asked after I typed the first one. Other than that tho, I don't think they ever finished higher than 3rd but I could be wrong.

 

[billsin01]

For the original poster - How about Oklahoma and Texas? Leaving the SWC worked out ok for them.

Yeah, this is a good response. I am not sure it works entirely b/c I'm not sure the other schools that joined in 94 (I think it was 94) did all that well (A&M, Baylor and TT all had long periods of struggle) and a school that was left behind still basically thrived on the field (TCU).

But this is a good answer. My point was more that I don't think move to the ACC has made BC any better whatsoever and I think part of why many are excited about the move to the ACC is that they think our programs will be better. Better-funded? I guess (I still think all the TV money is short-sighted and a bit hollow), but I just don't think it makes us as much more viable or established as many posters think.

Ultimately it's fine and we'll be OK in hoops (I just think we benefited from our ties to NYC, even with kids from other areas of the country). But my point was that BC was blah before and they are maybe worse than blah now. This move doesn't guarantee us anything and I would guess this alignment is not the same 5 years from now (which is another annoying thing).

And yes, it worked well for VT, but I think you could argue VT fit much better in the ACC than in the BE in the first place.

 

[billsin01]

BC has benefited financially, athletically and academically. Trust me it was a grand slam for the university. They are ecstatic we are joining b/c we are kissing cousins geographically speaking but it was already a grand slam before our arrival for them.

The coaching issue with Jags was because he was sniffing around NFL jobs and Gene D canned him. They made the wrong call on Spaz who is not a head coach. They will fix that with an up and comer type when Spaz is put out to pasture. IF they lose this weekend to Umass, it could be as soon as Monday.

How have they benefited? And don't bore me with academics b/c I couldn't care less and people who think this actually matters in a meaningful way are naive, IMO. But how athletically have they benefited? I get that a bad hire can hurt but I have yet to see any way they are athletically any better (and perhaps they are worse) than they were in the Big East in 2004. This is, largely, my whole point. Give me a specific reason we should be excited since our profile is pretty similar to BC's.

And, as an aside, they are certainly no more relevant nationally or locally (the poster from boston couldn't even remember al skinner's last name or the name of the new coach they hired). Wasn't that part of the reason for the move as well -- to increase their profile. And if they are rolling in coin, why are they hiring Spaz from within and not attracting a huge coaching name with all that money?

 

[Cadillac]

In ACC, BC hasn't been out of its league

 

[Chip]

Yeah, this is a good response. I am not sure it works entirely b/c I'm not sure the other schools that joined in 94 (I think it was 94) did all that well (A&M, Baylor and TT all had long periods of struggle) and a school that was left behind still basically thrived on the field (TCU).

But this is a good answer. My point was more that I don't think move to the ACC has made BC any better whatsoever and I think part of why many are excited about the move to the ACC is that they think our programs will be better. Better-funded? I guess (I still think all the TV money is short-sighted and a bit hollow), but I just don't think it makes us as much more viable or established as many posters think.

Ultimately it's fine and we'll be OK in hoops (I just think we benefited from our ties to NYC, even with kids from other areas of the country). But my point was that BC was blah before and they are maybe worse than blah now. This move doesn't guarantee us anything and I would guess this alignment is not the same 5 years from now (which is another annoying thing).

And yes, it worked well for VT, but I think you could argue VT fit much better in the ACC than in the BE in the first place.

Do you think we'd get better staying in the Big East with the teams that are in there? Sure we'd probably get a BCS bid one of these years but that BCS bid was starting to get sour again (Cincy loses 2 straight, one which they're crushed, UConn gets crushed in a game that was considered a joke from the get go).

One last point about BC, and I'm not really in the know for this, just something I suspect. I don't get the feeling that they're really all in on trying to create a championship team. Their spending on coaches doesn't give you that impression, and I don't know that they have some great set of facilities. Maybe they do but you don't hear about it. I think they sell that they will be a hard nosed football team at a very good academic institution in a very interesting city.

I get the sense that SU will use the additional revenue wisely on making an all out effort to have a championship calibur football team. Improved infrastructure, paying coaches at market to keep the staff together as best they can, building the indoor facility that recruits will want to see. I think we're positioned for great things, and this league IS the league to be in if you want play football anywhere on the east coast.

Haven't felt this good about SU football in a long time.