The athletic

[rrlbees]

Excellent article in the athletic, if you can read it, about teams that have switched conferences.

Mandel's Mailbag: Are teams doomed after joining a new conference? Does Notre Dame finally have a QB?

Should Oklahoma, Texas, USC and UCLA be worried about success after changing conferences? Is it possible to win with a "run-first" offense?

theathletic.com

 

[CuseGrad94]

I have mentioned this before on the board and I will believe it well after I am off of this earth. Syracuse 100% had to leave and go to the ACC or be passed by. BUT When Syracuse left the Big East they lost their identity. They were the face of the Big East, and now they just don’t identify with this league and I fear they are lost and may never find their way back.

 

[zjscuse]

I have mentioned this before on the board and I will believe it well after I am off of this earth. Syracuse 100% had to leave and go to the ACC or be passed by. BUT When Syracuse left the Big East they lost their identity. They were the face of the Big East, and now they just don’t identify with this league and I fear they are lost and may never find their way back.

I feel the big 10 was more geographically our fit but then again North Carolina and Florida are essentially New York State jr with all the people taking refuge there. …. It really sucks the big east didn’t somewhat prioritize football for its survival.

 

[CuseLegacy]

I feel the big 10 was more geographically our fit but then again North Carolina and Florida are essentially New York State jr with all the people taking refuge there. …. It really sucks the big east didn’t somewhat prioritize football for its survival.

 

[NYCCuse826]

I feel the big 10 was more geographically our fit but then again North Carolina and Florida are essentially New York State jr with all the people taking refuge there. …. It really sucks the big east didn’t somewhat prioritize football for its survival.

They wouldn't be able to compete against the land grant universities. Football drives revenue, but it put SU behind the 8 ball when it comes to identity due to the move.

 

[Chip]

I have mentioned this before on the board and I will believe it well after I am off of this earth. Syracuse 100% had to leave and go to the ACC or be passed by. BUT When Syracuse left the Big East they lost their identity. They were the face of the Big East, and now they just don’t identify with this league and I fear they are lost and may never find their way back.

The Big East lost their identity before we left it.

Big East football in the 90s was great, but Rutgers and Temple dragged it down, kept it vulnerable.

We were the face of it but what was left wasn't recognizable from when it was great. It was just a damage control league in this sport.

 

[Newhouser]

The Big East lost their identity before we left it.

Big East football in the 90s was great, but Rutgers and Temple dragged it down, kept it vulnerable.

We were the face of it but what was left wasn't recognizable from when it was great. It was just a damage control league in this sport.

Amen. IT might not look it now but the ACC move in my opinion saved our sports programs and has bought us time to figure out where we go next. Big 10 would have been bad with all the state schools. ACC was perfect we just entered at a time where are big 3 sort of were on a downward swing. Climb back will sure as he-- be easier in the ACC than the Big 10.

 

[Willy75]

Where can I get that t-shirt!

 

[CuseLegacy]

Where can I get that t-shirt!

This was the link in the tweet.

Viralstyle

Viralstyle Is the 100% Free Way to Sell High-quality T-shirts.

viralstyle.com

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

The Big East lost their identity before we left it.

Big East football in the 90s was great, but Rutgers and Temple dragged it down, kept it vulnerable.

We were the face of it but what was left wasn't recognizable from when it was great. It was just a damage control league in this sport.

The hybrid model of only half the conference members supporting football was never sustainable. Can you imagine the wars over revenue distribution now, considering how much power the non-football schools had in the conference?

 

[Willy75]

This was the link in the tweet.

Viralstyle

Viralstyle Is the 100% Free Way to Sell High-quality T-shirts.

viralstyle.com

Thanks!

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The hybrid model of only half the conference members supporting football was never sustainable. Can you imagine the wars over revenue distribution now, considering how much power the non-football schools had in the conference?

What could have been. The football schools really needed to break away. Those 9 plus adding 3 more for a CCG had a real shot at still being here. And IMO all the programs would be in better shape. Looking back at 2000...

You already had Miami, VA Tech, WV, Pitt, Temple, Rutgers, SU, BC. Plus UConn who was about to join. The plan should have been to move South by adding 2 more schools and then taking a shot at FSU.

East Carolina was a pretty good program back then, so they would be one add. The other add should have been Louisville who was starting to build something. Then you can go to FSU and say join us or we take UCF and you are stuck in a weaker conference.

For BBall in 2000 you had...

SU and UConn
Miami was pretty good around then
BC was down but in 2001 they had a good season
WV and Pitt were about to become good
Rutgers was Rutgers
VA Tech stunk

Then you add in...

Temple who was pretty good and you could argue a better program than Nova
Louisville who was a little down but about to get Pitino
ECU who stunk
Plus either FSU or UCF who both stunk at the time.

Maybe it is slightly down but it is still a pretty good BBall conference.


I do still think Rutgers eventually leaves for the B1G. But you can replace them with Cincy who is better at both sports. And/or do you go to 14 like everyone else by raiding the ACC? FSU (if no the 1st time), Clemson, GA Tech are all low hanging fruit after Maryland leaves. Which is pretty much the ACC without the 4 Carolina schools and UVA, instead you have ECU, Cincy, WV, UConn, and Temple.

 

[qdawgg]

I have mentioned this before on the board and I will believe it well after I am off of this earth. Syracuse 100% had to leave and go to the ACC or be passed by. BUT When Syracuse left the Big East they lost their identity. They were the face of the Big East, and now they just don’t identify with this league and I fear they are lost and may never find their way back.

We’ll never be the face of the ACC but I don’t think there is a face to the ACC except maybe Clemson. What caused our identity in the ACC to be pushed to the back is being terrible in football and just okay in BB (especially against the better programs). Had the football program had early success we’d be viewed different IMO. It can also change. Nobody was talking about SU football until this year. It only takes 2-3 years of decent success to be noticed again.

 

[Scooch]

Excellent article in the athletic, if you can read it, about teams that have switched conferences.

Mandel's Mailbag: Are teams doomed after joining a new conference? Does Notre Dame finally have a QB?

Should Oklahoma, Texas, USC and UCLA be worried about success after changing conferences? Is it possible to win with a "run-first" offense?

theathletic.com

There are just so many competing dynamics that it's really difficult to tease out the impact of the conference change from every other impact.

Plus the examples that were cited were somewhat flawed. Nebraska and Colorado were "Big 12 heavyweights"?

Nebraska's first 4 years in the B1G looked a lot like their prior 9 years in the Big 12, which meant a lot of 4 and 5 loss seasons. Colorado had been terrible for 7-8 years in the Big 12 before they moved to the Pac 12, and that run of terribleness continued.

Texas A&M was a mediocre B12 program, and they've actually been a tick better in the SEC. Missouri always stunk historically, they just were fortunate to have experienced their best 4 year stretch in their history right as the SEC needed a 14th program.

I do agree that Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA are playing a dangerous game competitively. They're going to get a revenue windfall, but it's very possible their programs suffer greatly on the field. Someone has to lose, and the competition in their new conferences is fierce.

As for us... the ACC is a great home. Let's all remember that, first and foremost, the ACC is a basketball conference. And we're a basketball school. That we found a P5 home, and corresponding payday, in a league that fits our academic and athletic profile was a stroke of good fortune.

I don't put much stock in the 'identity' arguments. Our football program's identity was largely trash when we got the ACC invite. I don't see how conference affiliation had much to do with anything in that regard. Hoops is entirely about James Arthur Boeheim, for better and worse.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There are just so many competing dynamics that it's really difficult to tease out the impact of the conference change from every other impact.

Plus the examples that were cited were somewhat flawed. Nebraska and Colorado were "Big 12 heavyweights"?

Nebraska's first 4 years in the B1G looked a lot like their prior 9 years in the Big 12, which meant a lot of 4 and 5 loss seasons. Colorado had been terrible for 7-8 years in the Big 12 before they moved to the Pac 12, and that run of terribleness continued.

Texas A&M was a mediocre B12 program, and they've actually been a tick better in the SEC. Missouri always stunk historically, they just were fortunate to have experienced their best 4 year stretch in their history right as the SEC needed a 14th program.

I do agree that Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA are playing a dangerous game competitively. They're going to get a revenue windfall, but it's very possible their programs suffer greatly on the field. Someone has to lose, and the competition in their new conferences is fierce.

As for us... the ACC is a great home. Let's all remember that, first and foremost, the ACC is a basketball conference. And we're a basketball school. That we found a P5 home, and corresponding payday, in a league that fits our academic and athletic profile was a stroke of good fortune.

I don't put much stock in the 'identity' arguments. Our football program's identity was largely trash when we got the ACC invite. I don't see how conference affiliation had much to do with anything in that regard. Hoops is entirely about James Arthur Boeheim, for better and worse.

For Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA it depends on what the end game is. It makes a ton of sense IMO for the B1G and SEC to go to 20 schools. For football you can go 1+9/9 (so you play home and away every 4 years) and BBall 1 twice + 18 (so everyone home and away every 2 years). If they add middle level programs to get to 20, the schedule is manageable to get into the Top 10 and a playoff berth.

 

[PhatOrange]

There are just so many competing dynamics that it's really difficult to tease out the impact of the conference change from every other impact.

Plus the examples that were cited were somewhat flawed. Nebraska and Colorado were "Big 12 heavyweights"?

Nebraska's first 4 years in the B1G looked a lot like their prior 9 years in the Big 12, which meant a lot of 4 and 5 loss seasons. Colorado had been terrible for 7-8 years in the Big 12 before they moved to the Pac 12, and that run of terribleness continued.

Texas A&M was a mediocre B12 program, and they've actually been a tick better in the SEC. Missouri always stunk historically, they just were fortunate to have experienced their best 4 year stretch in their history right as the SEC needed a 14th program.

I do agree that Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA are playing a dangerous game competitively. They're going to get a revenue windfall, but it's very possible their programs suffer greatly on the field. Someone has to lose, and the competition in their new conferences is fierce.

As for us... the ACC is a great home. Let's all remember that, first and foremost, the ACC is a basketball conference. And we're a basketball school. That we found a P5 home, and corresponding payday, in a league that fits our academic and athletic profile was a stroke of good fortune.

I don't put much stock in the 'identity' arguments. Our football program's identity was largely trash when we got the ACC invite. I don't see how conference affiliation had much to do with anything in that regard. Hoops is entirely about James Arthur Boeheim, for better and worse.

Our ACC record is also influenced by dumb luck. We were at a low point playing a conference division schedule that saw 2 Heisman trophy winners from different teams and 3 national champions.

In 2016 Clemson, FSU and LVille were all ranked in the top 5 at one point. Our division had top 10 rankings from 4 different teams 14x during that span.

We assuredly would have had a few more wins and a few less losses playing in the other side. A lot years it was like playing in that Big10 division with OSU, Michy and Pedo. Hard to climb out. The new ACC scheduling format should help us big time.

I prefer being in the ACC but imho our fit would've been better in the Big 10 both culturally and recruiting wise. While money doesn't buy success it sure helps.

 

[CuseGrad94]

The Big East lost their identity before we left it.

Big East football in the 90s was great, but Rutgers and Temple dragged it down, kept it vulnerable.

We were the face of it but what was left wasn't recognizable from when it was great. It was just a damage control league in this sport.

I agree 100%. They had to go, but sometimes to have an identity is better than none at all. I live in the Midwest and I’ve had many conversations with sports fans about Syracuse and they say oh I loved those Big East days (granted not generally about football), but it’s what we were know for. Now people don’t even always know what conference we are currently in.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Rutgers Basketball moved from a Northeastern conference to a Midwestern one and they are in better shape than us right now (38-30 in B1G play the last 4 years). It is all about the HC and not the company you keep.

 

[dollarbill44]

Rutgers Basketball moved from a Northeastern conference to a Midwestern one and they are in better shape than us right now (38-30 in B1G play the last 4 years). It is all about the HC and not the company you keep.

It's not all about one thing or another.

 

[Hokie Mark]

I have mentioned this before on the board and I will believe it well after I am off of this earth. Syracuse 100% had to leave and go to the ACC or be passed by. BUT When Syracuse left the Big East they lost their identity. They were the face of the Big East, and now they just don’t identify with this league and I fear they are lost and may never find their way back.

I don't disagree, but I believe this is something you can control. Teams MUST recruit heavily in their own state/surrounding areas. You can't be composed of players from other regions without losing your identity. Virginia Tech is also coming to this realization, with a refocus on in-state recruiting. When Syracuse was in the Big East, it seemed like they got more players from NY, NJ, and PA. This needs to be the norm - they sprinkle in players from Maryland, Florida, etc. JMO.