This Fox Sports Guy Ranks Syracuse Dead Last in his Realignment Rankings

[shandeezy7]

And (shockingly) I don't think I agree with a single thing he says:

12. Syracuse

Honest question, if Syracuse doesn't leave for the ACC aren't they added to the Big Ten instead of Rutgers? The brand is much better, you still get New York state, and it's a better geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Wouldn't every Syracuse fan prefer to be in the Big Ten too?

Instead you jumped to the ACC from the Big East, from one unstable conference to another unstable conference.

The teams in the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 can rest assured that whatever comes in the future, their conference is secure. The teams in the ACC and the Big 12? You're ground zero for the next conference realignment earthquakes.

Good luck.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/who-won-realignment-070114

 

[LoudHouse44]

And (shockingly) I don't think I agree with a single thing he says:



http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/who-won-realignment-070114

Really? I disagree with everything he says.

 

[Rocco]

This guy obviously has no idea about our geographic alumni base and where many CNYer's now reside. The East Coast is the only natural fit, not Iowa and Wisconsin.

 

[44PRIDE]

Yes, Syracuse may very well have ended up in the B1G. And hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure we would have done quite well. But was anyone willing to risk the open ACC invitation for a possible B1G invite?

Also, I think our little private institution matches up much better with the ACC than the larger Land Grant schools of the B1G.

 

[NKR1978]

That is one of the dumbest columns I've read on realignment and that's saying a lot. From an athletics and cultural (private and smaller enrollment state schools) perspective, the ACC is perfect for us. We make sense in the ACC.

I'd say West Virginia and Nebraska are the biggest losers. WVU for being on an island with no geographic connection to its conference. Nebraska because it is stuck in the Big 10 West with only Wisconsin to generate any excitement among its fans. They do get to print money though, so clearly giving up 80 year rivalries and partners is worth it.

 

[44PRIDE]

uh oh, there's a glitch in the matrix...

 

[SU2NASA]

I would have loved to see SU and UofM in the same conference selfishly, but the ACC is a better fit and it's not even close.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

He totally misunderstands the situation. That said, he's basically saying that we were a lock for the Big 10 and essentially one of the biggest prizes of realignment so I can't be too furious.

 

[BlazeOrange]

I'd say West Virginia and Nebraska are the biggest losers. WVU for being on an island with no geographic connection to its conference. Nebraska because it is stuck in the Big 10 West with only Wisconsin to generate any excitement among its fans. They do get to print money though, so clearly giving up 80 year rivalries and partners is worth it.

Agree on WVU, but Nebraska is okay. They have Iowa nearby (an upgrade over Iowa State) and will soon be able to rekindle their in conference rivalry with Oklahoma. Or they could pick up a new eastern team that doesn't have a rival...

 

[anomander]

Why would Syracuse want to be in a conference with all monster state schools? We are a perfect fit in the ACC.

 

[cuseincincy]

Its all in the eye of the beholder. SU would fit in fine with Big 10 schools such as Northwestern and ......oh yeah, nobody else except for the PSU thing. AT least in the ACC there are several other private school such as Duke, Miami, Wake, Clemson. Syracuse is also an eastern school with not just alumni all over the east coast but also many snowbirds from NYC that follow NY teams from their southern locations. The ACC is not goign anywhere. Rutgers #1? Depends on your point of view. Absolutely Rutgers fared much better than they deserved. They've never done anything except; 1 - suck at most sports. 2 - Be in the general New York vicinity, and 3 - be in a state that produces many quality athletes although most of them found their success at places other NJ State. But has Rutgers really fared well as an athletic program by moving to the Big 10? Not very likely. They'll continue to be mediocre to bad in basketball but their football program may never see 6 wins again. I think time is coming when most of the realignment that has happened will be acknowledged as failures. SU won't likely be one of them as they did not reach above their means. And they didn't abandon any long time football rivals. The basketball rivals we abandoned have been nicely replaced by Duke, NC, Virginia.

 

[tep624]

How is the ACC an unstable conference? Because Maryland left? The conference has a GOR now for $%$% sakes.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I'd agree with listing Rutgers as #1 because they are a MAC level athletic program who got rewarded due to geography. Without the BiG $, they are finished as a destination for any decent football player.

 

[milerock]

Clemson is a state school but modestly sized...about 16.5K undergrad and 5K grad...#21 public school per us news

 

[GoSU96]

And (shockingly) I don't think I agree with a single thing he says:



http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/who-won-realignment-070114

Louisville is #2 because they are a perfect fit for the ACC but SU and Pitt are bringing up the rear because they would be a better fit for the BIG.

That's nuts.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Wouldn't every Syracuse fan prefer to be in the B1G?

Ummm, no thanks. I prefer playing in the same time zone in major media markets in football, basketball and lax.

 

[Cuseroc]

Seems like this list is based on who had the most to lose in Realignment. I take it that SU and Pitt had the least to lose according to the author because he thinks if they stayed in the BE that the BE would still be around today. He had them ranked 11th and 12th.

 

[cuseincincy]

Seems like this list is based on who had the most to lose in Realignment. I take it that SU and Pitt had the least to lose according to the author because he thinks if they stayed in the BE that the BE would still be around today. He had them ranked 11th and 12th.

If he thinks that I probably agree with him. Has SU and Pitt not left the Big East would likely still exist including most likely Notre Dame (forallsportsexceptfootball).

 

[shantydaze]

I follow the logic of the column. The schools that most benefited by realignment were Rutgers and Louisville. Hard to argue this point. Both were struck in the AAC and irrelevancy unless being brought into one of the P5. From an athletic standpoint, Rutgers should never have been picked. Its location is the sole reason it was attractive to a conference that wanted television markets and not quality. Louisville is a team that 10 years ago was in the Conference USA. Had the B1G not poached Maryland, it would be back in a rebranded Conference USA. It was a last minute addition to ACC that would have been screwed had the B1G picked up Rutgers and UConn instead of Rutgers and Maryland.

While Utah and TCU were moved from a mid-major to a P5 conference, unlike Rutgers and Louisville, they were brought in the first round of expansion, so less of a risk and less of a concern of being left behind like Rutgers and Louisville faced.

Of the P5 teams that moved conferences, I would have put Missouri ahead of Texas A&M. It lost out on an invite from the B1G, where it was lobbying to go. It has less of an upside in terms of region and market for the SEC than A&M. After that I would have picked A&M and Nebraska. Both move to lucrative conferences and get out of the shadow of Texas.

I would put WVU last. While in a P5 conference, the weakest of the conferences and one that makes no sense geographically. Although had Louisville been invited to the B12 instead of WVU, I am not convinced WVU makes it into the ACC over UConn. The rest are a toss-up, although I think I would have placed Maryland at the end. It went from one stable P5 conference to another. Syracuse and Pitt went from an unstable to stable conference.

 

[djorange1989]

what a horsesh** article. The ACC is a much better fit for us and the conference is quite stable.

 

[baggerbob]

The Big 10 hype go's on, once upon a time there were 2 football powerhouses, one in the east, and one in the mid-west. They both decided winning championships was not enough, and joined a group of schools promising big money. Alas they did receive money, but found they were no longer relevant on the national scene.

 

[Chip]

No one agrees with that first paragraph that the Big 10 would prefer SU to Rutgers?

Thought this board would jump all over that.

 

[TheCusian]

Must be a Golden Rodent fan.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

He's basically saying that SU's too good for the ACC and deserves to be in the B1G. He's not saying SU sucks. I disagree with him, though. I vastly prefer the ACC to the B1G.

 

[HtownOrange]

That is one of the dumbest columns I've read on realignment and that's saying a lot. From an athletics and cultural (private and smaller enrollment state schools) perspective, the ACC is perfect for us. We make sense in the ACC.

I'd say West Virginia and Nebraska are the biggest losers. WVU for being on an island with no geographic connection to its conference. Nebraska because it is stuck in the Big 10 West with only Wisconsin to generate any excitement among its fans. They do get to print money though, so clearly giving up 80 year rivalries and partners is worth it.

...let's not forget the free trip to Rutgers every now and then, UNL gets that, too...