Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Scooch, post: 4533407, member: 628"]
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 [I]terrible[/I] 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 [I]history[/I] 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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?