Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HRE Otto IV, post: 5616158, member: 5685"] The only way the B12 makes sense is if there are divisions of 5-6 teams (but then the NCAA has to approve multi team conference playoffs). Pods of 3-4 or no divisions at all would kill our program. A Northeastern division of 5-6 teams we can have an identity and be successful. -------------- The ACC and B12 aren't close to the same. The B12 is full of football schools. The ACC has academic and BBall schools. Again once the B1G and SEC pick off the last B12/ACC brands what is left over is NOT a power conference. It becomes a G7. Best G7 by far but still a G7. It is a minor league conference. No ACC team is paying the buyout to go to the B12. There is no benefit. So we are here for another 10 years. What does it matter if you get $50M a year if you are playing against teams that also get $50M AND can pay outside NIL well above what we can? All that money doesn't bring success. I rather make $10M a year and play in a conference with like minded schools where we can win championships. It doesn't make us any less competitive because 11 out of our 12 games are against teams making the SAME amount of money or less. The SEC teams can be making $250M a year and it will have ZERO impact on our competitiveness. Yes, we won't be able to retain our players but that still happens if we make $50M a year. So in the end it makes no difference. Does SU athletics exist to make as much money as possible or to win games? People will not support a B12 program to see a 5-7 record every year with no chance at the CCG. Even in the B1G we have a better chance at a 7-5 record than in the B12. The bottom 75% of the B12 is much better than the bottom 75% of the B1G. And at least we have name programs coming to the Dome to pique interest even if we stink. It is major league football so people will still buy in. If/when the ACC loses a bunch of teams, Stanford and Cal will join the PAC and not the B12 for the same reasons that we should stay behind in a new ACC made up of the top Eastern left behinds. In terms of money is the PAC/ACC worse than the B12? Sure. But in terms of competitiveness it is better to be in the PAC/ACC. With all those exit fees and NCAAT credits, I think SU/BC/Pitt/Wake and whomever else is left are certainly better off in an ACC 5.0 than the B12. Trying to climb over 24 other schools to win in FB or BBall is a lot harder than climbing over 10. It is why so many programs are struggling in these super conference in both sports. Back when we were good we played 5 toss up games (3 in conference, 2 OOC), 2 should win games (1 in and 1 out), and 4 cupcake games (3 in and 1 out). So if we went .500 in our toss up we were 8-2-1. Now we play 2 cupcakes (both OOC) and 10 toss ups (9 conf and 1 OOC). That is 2x the amount of toss ups. If we go .500 in the toss ups (which is hard), we end up with a 7-5 record. So with 1 more game we have 1 less W. And that would be a good season. As for BBall it wasn't a coincidence that everyone in the Big East became better after the split. They were no longer lost/buried in the super conference. No one pursues the B12. They only go as a last resort. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?