ND's Swarbrick is happy with ACC and...

[Townie72]

I know that was going to be your answer.

Did you see what I did there?!

In all seriousness, one can argue it either way. The hoops schools will claim that they gave in repeatedly to football concerns and the conference broke up anyway. The football schools will claim that the conditions the hoops schools imposed and the enormous gulf in athletic commitment between the two sides doomed the conference.

Ultimately, it seems inevitable given the college facilities arms race that a conference with both Virginia Tech and Seton Hall was bound to fail. Cross-purposes, different agendas, and all.

I can't think of a single issue in which the basketball schools held the football schools back from anything they wanted to do. But I guess there were some.

And Syracuse ---- because of the larger role that basketball plays at SU than at the other schools --- reportedly voted frequently with the basketball schools. The football schools couldn't count on our vote because we sell 500,000 tickets to BB games a year and make a lot of money off of BB-related TV and merchandise royalties. (When football attendance fell, our solution to the revenue shortfall was to schedule more BB games at the Carrier Dome ... in spite of the never-ending criticism associated with that.

In retrospect, none of the schools wanted to give up BE basketball. Starting with when Penn State wanted to form an all sports conference in the East that would have required us to leave the Big East (and to share basketball revenue but not football revenue --- Thanks, JoePa, but no thanks)

What held the football schools back was their own timidity and not wanting to let go of the BE BB sure thing to steer off into uncharted waters. And the fact the conference leadership was paid to hold the conference together.

That, plus the fact, that there just weren't enough schools available to form a good all sports conference in the East without BC and PSU. And the Big East didn't have enough money coming in to lure a Maryland away from the ACC or a PSU away from the B1G.

There's a good book in this for someone to write. About how the Big East failed and why.

 

[Scooch]

I can't think of a single issue in which the basketball schools held the football schools back from anything they wanted to do. But I guess there were some.

And Syracuse ---- because of the larger role that basketball plays at SU than at the other schools --- reportedly voted frequently with the basketball schools. The football schools couldn't count on our vote because we sell 500,000 tickets to BB games a year and make a lot of money off of BB-related TV and merchandise royalties. (When football attendance fell, our solution to the revenue shortfall was to schedule more BB games at the Carrier Dome ... in spite of the never-ending criticism associated with that.

In retrospect, none of the schools wanted to give up BE basketball. Starting with when Penn State wanted to form an all sports conference in the East that would have required us to leave the Big East (and to share basketball revenue but not football revenue --- Thanks, JoePa, but no thanks)

What held the football schools back was their own timidity and not wanting to let go of the BE BB sure thing to steer off into uncharted waters. And the fact the conference leadership was paid to hold the conference together.

That, plus the fact, that there just weren't enough schools available to form a good all sports conference in the East without BC and PSU. And the Big East didn't have enough money coming in to lure a Maryland away from the ACC or a PSU away from the B1G.

There's a good book in this for someone to write. About how the Big East failed and why.

"The Catholic schools did a really good thing. They stayed at the table for as long as it took them to make as much money as they could. And once they saw all the money running out, they decided to go play somewhere else. Had some of them managed to vote appropriately over the last 10 years [as Big East conference members with a say on rights' fees], we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.

-Geno Auriemma. Yesterday. Emphasis mine.

 

[Townie72]

"The Catholic schools did a really good thing. They stayed at the table for as long as it took them to make as much money as they could. And once they saw all the money running out, they decided to go play somewhere else. Had some of them managed to vote appropriately over the last 10 years [as Big East conference members with a say on rights' fees], we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.

-Geno Auriemma. Yesterday. Emphasis mine.

Ahhhh, I'm not sure that any UConn basketball coach, mens or womens, is the best place to go for an insightful analysis right now into what happened and why. UConn is the school that is really taking it in the shorts. Some would say "deservedly". And they are going to bitch the loudest and try to reflect as much blame as they can.

What's Geno talking about here? Is he saying that by failing to cooperate ("vote appropriately") the Catholic 7 killed the NBE or the NNBE? And having done that, the Catholic 7 should not now bug out just because they make more money doing it?


At any rate, I don't get the criticism. Staying at the table till the money runs out seems to me to be basic micro economics. Does he think the Catholic 7 ought to stay even though they'll make less money? And they should do that to help UConn?

There's really two questions here.

1. Who killed the NBE or the NNBE? How much of the blame do the Catholic 7 have? Geno seems to feel they shared some of the blame. How did the Catholic 7 votes on TV rights kill the conference. Is he talking about the ESPN offer to extend the contract?

2. Given the NNBE's composition, do the Catholic 7 owe it to the remaining members of the Big East to stay even though they "might" make more money in a new conference by adding a few more schools?

 

[Scooch]

Ahhhh, I'm not sure that any UConn basketball coach, mens or womens, is the best place to go for an insightful analysis right now into what happened and why. UConn is the school that is really taking it in the shorts. Some would say "deservedly". And they are going to bitch the loudest and try to reflect as much blame as they can.

What's Geno talking about here? Is he saying that by failing to cooperate ("vote appropriately") the Catholic 7 killed the NBE or the NNBE? And having done that, the Catholic 7 should not now bug out just because they make more money doing it?


At any rate, I don't get the criticism. Staying at the table till the money runs out seems to me to be basic micro economics. Does he think the Catholic 7 ought to stay even though they'll make less money? And they should do that to help UConn?

There's really two questions here.

1. Who killed the NBE or the NNBE? How much of the blame do the Catholic 7 have? Geno seems to feel they shared some of the blame. How did the Catholic 7 votes on TV rights kill the conference. Is he talking about the ESPN offer to extend the contract?

2. Given the NNBE's composition, do the Catholic 7 owe it to the remaining members of the Big East to stay even though they "might" make more money in a new conference by adding a few more schools?

Honestly, this debate bores me so I'm going to step out of it.

Both "sides" are to blame.

 

[Townie72]

Honestly, this debate bores me so I'm going to step out of it.

Both "sides" are to blame.

FYI

http://www.nj.com/college-basketbal...y_break_off_to_form_their_own_conference.html

 

[Resonator]

In 2003 UNC and Duke repeatedly voted no against any expansion whatsoever. Their intransigence led to Virginia Tech being admitted as an 11th member (after Miami), much to the horror of Swofford and his consultants.

In 2012 the ACC admitted Louisville.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, case closed, thank you for your time.

The bolded statement is not entirely true.

Both UNC and Duke were on record as being agreeable with expansion, but, only if that meant adding just Miami. It was expansion beyond 10 teams that they opposed. What Carolina and Duke wanted, above all else, was to save the annual round-robin in ACC hoops, particularly the ones between the Big Four (UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake). When it became clear that 12 teams was the only endgame, they proposed the pod system for hoops, for the exact same purpose. But, Maryland was the one who raised the most hell in opposition to that. They saw Duke as a major hoops rival, but, Duke did not return that feeling. Just as Townie noted. In the end, UMD got what they wanted. And, the league as a whole suffered for it, IMHO.

 

[Scooch]

The bolded statement is not entirely true.

Both UNC and Duke were on record as being agreeable with expansion, but, only if that meant adding just Miami. It was expansion beyond 10 teams that they opposed. What Carolina and Duke wanted, above all else, was to save the annual round-robin in ACC hoops, particularly the ones between the Big Four (UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake). When it became clear that 12 teams was the only endgame, they proposed the pod system for hoops, for the exact same purpose. But, Maryland was the one who raised the most hell in opposition to that. They saw Duke as a major hoops rival, but, Duke did not return that feeling. Just as Townie noted. In the end, UMD got what they wanted. And, the league as a whole suffered for it, IMHO.

Well, look, expansion to 12 was going to happen because the reason to expand was to get to 12 and add a conference championship game. So UNC and Duke's position was at best "principled" but was functionally pointless.

With expansion to 12 inevitable UNC and Duke had a choice, either support who they wanted in their club or vote no on principle and leave that decision to the rest of the membership. They knew full well what was going on in Virginia, and how UVA was being told to vote. So by their actions they let VaTech in, which screwed Syracuse. Maybe UNC and Duke secretly wanted VaTech in, maybe they were happy to keep Syracuse out, or maybe they were just stuck on their principles. I have no idea.

But it definitely was pointless.

*edit* I don't mean to be harsh to you. That was a nice post you made earlier.

 

[baggerbob]

Basically by sitting it out they got Boston College instead of Syracuse in that first expansion.

 

[Resonator]

Well, look, expansion to 12 was going to happen because the reason to expand was to get to 12 and add a conference championship game. So UNC and Duke's position was at best "principled" but was functionally pointless.

With expansion to 12 inevitable UNC and Duke had a choice, either support who they wanted in their club or vote no on principle and leave that decision to the rest of the membership. They knew full well what was going on in Virginia, and how UVA was being told to vote. So by their actions they let VaTech in, which screwed Syracuse. Maybe UNC and Duke secretly wanted VaTech in, maybe they were happy to keep Syracuse out, or maybe they were just stuck on their principles. I have no idea.

But it definitely was pointless.

*edit* I don't mean to be harsh to you. That was a nice post you made earlier.

No worries. Never took it as being harsh. Took it as being honest.

You are absolutely correct that the UNC-Duke position on expansion was 'principled.' They knew the other seven members were going to vote for it, regardless of their points of view. But, I understand why they took the stance they did. They had to have their say, and, that was it.

I cannot speak as to whom UNC administrators might have wanted from that original expansion. Just from the Rams Club (UNC booster club) members I personally know, once expansion to 12 was inevitable, Syracuse was very much one UNC wanted. I wanted Syracuse and Pitt to come along with Miami. But, Tha U wanted BC. Make no mistake about it. VPI was not even on the radar, until former VA Gov Mark Warner intervened on their behalf. And, for that, I do not blame him. He is SUPPOSED to have his state's universities best interests in mind.

 

[orange79]

But, Tha U wanted BC. Make no mistake about it.

Why was Miami so hot and heavy for BC? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't remember hearing that before.

 

[Resonator]

Basically by sitting it out they got Boston College instead of Syracuse in that first expansion.

IIRC, BC was always going to come along. So was Syracuse, to the best of my recollection. When VA's governor intervened on VPI's part, that is when Syracuse became odd man out.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but, when it became apparent that VPI was going to be included, didn't Syracuse decide to remain in the BE on their own?

 

[Resonator]

Why was Miami so hot and heavy for BC? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't remember hearing that before.

Seems like I remember reading in one NC newspaper that Miami wanted Syracuse and BC because they had two of their larger alumni associations in NYC and Boston. Miami has always had large numbers of northeastern kids in their student body anyway. So, those two picks made the most sense.

Plus, the chance to put the ACC into the major Boston media market was a no-brainer.

 

[Scooch]

IIRC, BC was always going to come along. So was Syracuse, to the best of my recollection. When VA's governor intervened on VPI's part, that is when Syracuse became odd man out.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but, when it became apparent that VPI was going to be included, didn't Syracuse decide to remain in the BE on their own?

My understanding is that the Presidents voted on Miami, who passed. Next BC was voted on and rejected 6-3, with UNC, Duke & UVA voting no. Then after some bit of debate and confusion VaTech was voted on and passed 7-2, with UNC and Duke voting no.

Syracuse never came up to a vote. At that point the voting process ended. I distinctly recall an administrator saying after the vote on VT people in the room looked around, wondering what they had just done.

 

[riskylogic]

Plus, the chance to put the ACC into the major Boston media market was a no-brainer.

Or so it seemed at the time. BC will make lots more sense with Syracuse in, but they've been a distant outpost ever since they joined. Adding Pitt and Syracuse made Massachusetts a contiguous ACC state -- but only for one year apparently. Now it looks like Indiana will be a contiguous state, but not PA, NY, or MA. Maybe we need Cincy to circumvent WV and MD.

 

[Toga]

At the time, IIRC people thought Shalala had our back.

Why was Miami so hot and heavy for BC? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't remember hearing that before.

 

[Resonator]

My understanding is that the Presidents voted on Miami, who passed. Next BC was voted on and rejected 6-3, with UNC, Duke & UVA voting no. Then after some bit of debate and confusion VaTech was voted on and passed 7-2, with UNC and Duke voting no.

Syracuse never came up to a vote. At that point the voting process ended. I distinctly recall an administrator saying after the vote on VT people in the room looked around, wondering what they had just done.

OK, I wasn't sure of just how it all played out.

To me, BC has always been a good fit, geography aside. Its an excellent academic institution, and, the Spaziani hire aside, a solid FB program. They've won the Atlantic Divison twice, which is more than UNC can say.

I think we can agree that BC is way down the list in terms of fan support in Boston. But, when they've had solid teams, they've been supported fairly well. They'll never have the large fanbase that a Syracuse or UNC enjoys, but, it can be decent.

 

[omniorange]

My understanding is that the Presidents voted on Miami, who passed. Next BC was voted on and rejected 6-3, with UNC, Duke & UVA voting no. Then after some bit of debate and confusion VaTech was voted on and passed 7-2, with UNC and Duke voting no.

Syracuse never came up to a vote. At that point the voting process ended. I distinctly recall an administrator saying after the vote on VT people in the room looked around, wondering what they had just done.

Supposedly, this is what I was told went down. It actually makes sense to me.

First vote was on UNC's and Duke's Miami only proposal. That was voted down.

Once they did this they knew UNC and Duke would likely vote "No" on everything, although they had hope for Duke thinking they might prefer SU basketball to VT basketball.

So knowing they would need UVa's vote to get Miami in if Duke didn't waiver, VT was actually voted on next.

The vote on VT was supposedly designed with a "who will blink showdown" between NC State's Fox (long distance) and Duke's Keohane. Long story there and it no longer matters.

When VT passed, then Miami was voted in.

After Miami voted in, UVA president Casteen (like Fox, also long distance), motioned that further expansion be tabled at that time. This was seconded by Fox and passed.

Neither BC nor SU supposedly came to a vote back in June 2003.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Townie72]

Why was Miami so hot and heavy for BC? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't remember hearing that before.

I'm guessing ... but since Rutgers was never going to be considered --- BC seemed the next best thing to Miami. They (Miami) have a huge percentage of their alumni from and/or living in the Northeast ... especially NY and NJ. The opportunity to play before your alumni is a big deal for any university, especially a private university.

 

[orange79]

I'm guessing ... but since Rutgers was never going to be considered --- BC seemed the next best thing to Miami. They (Miami) have a huge percentage of their alumni from and/or living in the Northeast ... especially NY and NJ. The opportunity to play before your alumni is a big deal for any university, especially a private university.

Makes sense. I didn't remember hearing that before. Thanks.

 

[Scooch]

Supposedly, this is what I was told went down. It actually makes sense to me.

First vote was on UNC's and Duke's Miami only proposal. That was voted down.

Once they did this they knew UNC and Duke would likely vote "No" on everything, although they had hope for Duke thinking they might prefer SU basketball to VT basketball.

So knowing they would need UVa's vote to get Miami in if Duke didn't waiver, VT was actually voted on next.

The vote on VT was supposedly designed with a "who will blink showdown" between NC State's Fox (long distance) and Duke's Keohane. Long story there and it no longer matters.

When VT passed, then Miami was voted in.

After Miami voted in, UVA president Casteen (like Fox, also long distance), motioned that further expansion be tabled at that time. This was seconded by Fox and passed.

Neither BC nor SU supposedly came to a vote back in June 2003.

Cheers,
Neil

Fascinating, thanks Neil.

I guess the takeaway is that the expansion vote, and the entire process really, was a total clusterf$@k.

No wonder why the news of SU's, Pitt's and ND's inclusion came from out of the blue.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Supposedly, this is what I was told went down. It actually makes sense to me.

First vote was on UNC's and Duke's Miami only proposal. That was voted down.

Once they did this they knew UNC and Duke would likely vote "No" on everything, although they had hope for Duke thinking they might prefer SU basketball to VT basketball.

So knowing they would need UVa's vote to get Miami in if Duke didn't waiver, VT was actually voted on next.

The vote on VT was supposedly designed with a "who will blink showdown" between NC State's Fox (long distance) and Duke's Keohane. Long story there and it no longer matters.

When VT passed, then Miami was voted in.

After Miami voted in, UVA president Casteen (like Fox, also long distance), motioned that further expansion be tabled at that time. This was seconded by Fox and passed.

Neither BC nor SU supposedly came to a vote back in June 2003.

Cheers,
Neil

thats the way i remember it too.

it was clearly botched.

they ended up with 11, 1 school who they didnt want, plus the whole goal was to go north with Syracuse and BC...and they got neither. miami was a no-brainer in, but only by going to 12.

after the smoke cleared, they realized they didnt have boston and said, holy fcuk.

the bigeast then went into cya mode, bc said no to something (help me out here) and once the bigeast said FU to bc...bc gave a nod to the ACC who quickly voted them in.

 

[rrlbees]

I'm guessing ... but since Rutgers was never going to be considered --- BC seemed the next best thing to Miami. They (Miami) have a huge percentage of their alumni from and/or living in the Northeast ... especially NY and NJ. The opportunity to play before your alumni is a big deal for any university, especially a private university.

If the ACC and Miami had been forward thinking, they would have taken rutgirls over BC.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[KaiserUEO]

If the ACC and Miami had been forward thinking, they would have taken rutgirls over BC.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

shouldve taken miami, rutgers and bc.

pushed the rest of us inland, and the bigeast would likely still be together.

 

[TexanMark]

shouldve taken miami, rutgers and bc.

pushed the rest of us inland, and the bigeast would likely still be together.

ACC leadership would've been fired for suggesting taking a team at the time which was the equal to a mediocre 1-AA team.

But the ACC should've taken Cuse and Rutgers Sept 11 for the geography.

 

[KaiserUEO]

ACC leadership would've been fired for suggesting taking a team at the time which was the equal to a mediocre 1-AA team.

But the ACC should've taken Cuse and Rutgers Sept 11 for the geography.

exactly, but.....

a good trade hurts.

expansion should hurt.

the ACC was thinking like a boner from this board...'whos the good team? lets get them!!'

stupid, stupid, stupid.

get who can make you $$ and where your alumni would want to go for a roadie.

pretty simple stuff.

but nobody listens to me.

:noidea: