Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Scooch, post: 456755, member: 628"]
Nah, the ACC had it right.  Well, their consultants had it right.  Miami, BC, Syracuse.
 
Miami was the premium football brand they needed to pair with Florida State.  It's remarkable how both programs fell apart right after expansion, but what can you do?
 
Syracuse was the best combination of brand, performance on field/court, and market.  But BC was the best pure market, so they were the #2 choice for that reason.  If SU was located in Westchester it wouldn't be close.
 
Rutgers was not just a bad brand, it was a historically bad brand.  And due to that they weren't really a market.  Think about that: Rutgers performance was[I] so bad[/I] that it invalidated their geography.  Let's not be revisionist historians.  There was no possible way to sell expanding with Rutgers in 2003, none at all.
 
Anyway, to be honest at the time I thought the ACC should have gone big, especially since they were being forced to add VaTech, and taken Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse and Pitt.  So it all worked out, eventually.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?