ACC should not have picked Boston College as the 12th member. The only thing there was the Boston TV market. Only reason why the ACC picked Boston College.

If I was the ACC I would have chosen South Florida. Tampa's market is fairly good, even though you already have it basically. South Florida is an upcoming football program, while not that good in basketball they have potential. Plus they fit geogaphically.

Should Have Been ACC
North
Duke
Maryland
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia
Virginia Tech

South
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
South Florida
Wake Forest

----------------------
Plus the Big East could have made its own niche has NE conference.

The whole point behind ACC expansion was to try to maintain the ~ $10 mill payout from the conference.

The only way to do that would be to grab more markets, hence that's why they tried for SU and BC.
This way, they would cover just about everywhere from Florida to NE. Also, one can argue whether the ACC was trying to "cripple" the BE by taking both BC and SU with Miami thereby giving them almost all of "NE" market (in theory anyway).

If the ACC could have gone to 14 they could have had the "whole" Atlantic coast by adding RU and UConn as well although no way they would do that.

If they wanted to stay "southern" then they would have tried for USF, ECU, VT, WVU, or UCF in the original identification of expansion teams. However, they really don't tap into new markets with these teams. In addtion, by having FSU and UM they would cover most of Florida.

Even as a BE fan, I'm not sure how much of Tampa USF brings to the table. Maybe in the future they will have some big following in Florida, but with UM, FSU, and UF already firmly entrenched, I'm not sure how that's going to happen.

Would the BE still be in existance if both SU and BC left?

To answer PantherSC97’s question, I do not believe that the Big East would exist if both Syracuse and Boston College went to the ACC. My feeling is that the Catholic schools would not have allowed expansion to keep the football component of the Conference in existence. This would have forced Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Rutgers, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, and Temple to join with Conference USA through some sort of re-organization. That is just my opinion, though.

Interesting point, BCHokie. Looking at your list, only UConn was a founding member of the Big East & of the rest, only Pitt had full membership in the conference prior to the past decade. Certainly, the ties to these other programs would not have been as strongly felt by the Catholic schools. Furthermore, the geography would not have felt very "East" to rest of the membership. Temple was not a member, so 3 of the other 5 were off in the southwest corner of the conference far from the northeastern geography of the Catholics. When all of the planning was going on last summer, not only was Syracuse part of the equation instead of Virginia Tech, but BC was also back in the fold until October - & by then the die had been cast. with Syracuse & BC around, the planning was done considering the fb needs of three of the conference's 7 founding members, not just one.

The role of BC in re-planning the conference was very important. With BC the vote was 6 fb schools vs 6 bb schools - dead even. Without BC, the bb schools would have had a majority, 6-5.

Of course, we will never know, but you may just have a point.

If Syracuse and BC would have left the BE, the BE football schools would have split and formed either a 10 or 12 team conference. Maybe the BB schools would have pushed the other schools out and maybe not.

Football was driving this thing and the remainint BE football schools would have been under pressure to form an all sports conference to maintain BCS status.

One of the 12 team proposal that would probably have formed.

North: Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Cincinnati, Va Tech

South: Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, Southern Miss, Houston, TCU

At that time Tulane was considering droping football and could have replaced one of the southern teams. Likewise Va Tech and WVU could have pushed for East Carolina as one of the 12 teams.

TCU was very interested in this alignment and would never have went to the MWC if this 12 team conference would have formed.

The NBE would have kept its BCS membership with or without Syracuse.

I am not sure that Syracuse is really in favor of keeping the current basketball schools and football schools together.

It is just a matter of time before the football schools split.

It is not really the same since Maimi joined anyway and once the ACC plans came out including Syracuse, the BE football schools are not really aligned or in sync anymore.

The 5 year plan to remain together is a mutual agreement that helps both groups. The BB schools will have the required NCAA time as a group with 6 members to keep BCS auto bid and maintain the BE name.

The football schools will have proved BCS membership and both will go seperate ways in 5 years is the most likely scenerio.

Which long term scenerio is best for Pitt, WVU, UConn, Rutgers.

Depending on your preference, the BE without Syracuse would have an NE to Southwest slant and more travel.

The new BE football will have a NE to Florida slant and will probably make more money.

Either way both scenerio would have maintained BCS membership. Syracuse remaining in the BE just keeps the schools together a bit more longer is the only difference I see.

^There was also someone on the www.foxsports.com channel/website that proposed/conjectured a new conference alignment called, Conference X:

We have Conference USA, so why not Conference X? The X would stand for extra or eccentric and would give it a generic, non-geographic identity. In some ways I think that makes sense for CUSA and the old WAC and any other conference that veers away from their footprint to become a "conference of outposts".

I think it was Artie Gigatinno. His alignment looked like this, as I recall:

East, "aka, the Big East Division":

UConn
Syracuse
Rutgers
Pitt
WVU
USM

West "aka the Mountain West"

BYU
Colorado State
Utah
TCU/ or Air Force
Fresno State
UNLV/or New Mexico

The two divisions would focus on their divisions and play a conference championship alternating from an East Coast City and an Intermountain city. The winner would get a BCS bid.

Maybe this is what the Big East is drifting towards in 2011. What happens if they lose their BCS bid. What happens if CUSA doesn't get one. This is far-fetched, but why not try Conference X with CUSA. It could be:

The new Big East Division:

Syracuse
UConn
Rutgers
Pitt
WVU
Louisville
Cincy
USF
UCF
ECU
Marshall

The new Southwestern Conference Division:

Tulsa
SMU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
Memphis
UTEP
La Tech
UAB
USM
UNT

The two divisions would focus on their two divisions and would play a conference championship game in Birmingham or New Orleans. They would be assured to have a shot for the BCS, as they would have a better shot at it in four years, with more chances of having a power as well as someone getting over a #12 ranking to get a non-auto seed until they get the auto seed back. More teams means better chances. The divisions would keep the BCS money only for their division. The alliance is just to keep the odds in their favor to get a BCS bid. The two divisions would be their own conferences in all other sports.

This would be that true NE-SW slant, if the Big East truely wants that. A conference from Storrs, CT to El Paso, TX. Whats a couple thousand miles?

I can´t take credit for this (found on WVU Rivals site), but it´s interesting. I know it wouldn´t happen, but WHAT IF BC has to come back to the BE?

Corrections:
Temple is a Tier 2 institution I believe and much lower than BCs academic ranking. It´s also a public university

******************************

It looks like the ACC has taken out some insurance in case BC isn't available for 2005.

According to Temple's Press Release on 08/09/04, the ACC has recently decided to have several league members re-arrange their schedules so that 5 league ACC schools could play the Owls in FB for the 2005 season. Temple will now host 3 ACC powers, Miami FL, NCS, and Maryland. The Owls will travel to Clemson and Virginia.

5 is an important number, because if you play at least 5 league games, you can be counted as a league member. So technically, Temple could be invited to the ACC tomorrow and their ACC schedule is already set for 2005. The ACC has repeatedly insisted they will have their Conference Championship game in 2005. Wouldn't that be hillarious if Temple replaced BC in the ACC?

Is it a stretch to think Temple could offer s much as BC to the ACC? On the surface, yes. But look again.

• Temple is a private University.
• Academically, they are Tier 2, almost Tier 1 Status. Better than BC.
• Philly market is as good or better than Boston market, especially considering where Basketball is concerned.
• ACC recruits Philly in BB, not Massachussetts. It also gets the ACC into Big Ten territory for FB as well.
• ACC doesn't need another FB school. FB schools could use an even easier win than BC for bowl qualification.
• Geographically, Temple is much closer to the other ACC schools than Boston AND the state of PA is connected to the other ACC schools.
• Temple is free and clear to join any conference after this year with no strings attached. BC has been dragging their feet, still has the lawsuit hanging over them, and has stated they may have to stay in the Big East for 05 season.

All I can say is, BC better hurry up and pay their exit fee and get out of the Big East before it's too late.

*****************************************

Temple would be better than Boston College IMO as well. BC can stay in the Big East, better for them anyway.

As for Temple, if this happens they can :P at Villanova for never letting them in the Big East, as they would be in a better league.

Plus if BC stays in the Big East, then they would be equal to the MWC in terms of 9 teams. Also allows for future members of Notre Dame, Navy, and Army as well.

Also Temple is a better basketball school than Boston College very important for the ACC.

I don't know what that WVU person is referring to regarding Temple's academic rating, but they were, last year, a 3rd Tier National University ranked by USNWR. I don't know if he is referring to that ranking. It would be the lowest ranked academically in the ACC.

Its also a public university, not a private. The name doesn't mean its a private. It was up until 1965 a private university, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acquired it and made it one of three primary research universities in the state (PSU and Pitt the other two). Its officially "State-Related" whatever that means. But not a private, although it has a long history as a private u (prior to 1965).

This is an interesting take if its true. The one problem is that the bball league would be 17 teams if they kept BC. The Temple membership may be just a 1-year deal until BC is free.

Miami was the targeted program and at their request, Syracuse and BC were to be #11 and #12.

We all know what then happened with Virginia Tech. By that time, Miami had shown their hand and the ACC knew that they were on board no matter who was invited.

But I agree, BC should not have been invited. I live in Boston, have BC season tickets (despite being a UMass graduate) and the ACC just isn't a good fit.


The ACC was in a rush once the VPI incident came into play. They needed a 12th and wanted to include the benefits of expansion such as market and maintaining academics.

I just hope that the ACC took the time to at least approach Penn St. about inclusion. Because despite being a bit north, a confernece with Miami, Florida St. and Penn St. would secure the eastern markets. Penn St. is already a popular program in the New York area. In the ACC, they would have returned to their market presence glory like in the 80s and early 90s. Not to mention, they are reasonable close to Virginia Tech and Maryland and would have made more sense than BC.

Penn St.
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech
Miami

Duke
Wake
UNC
NC St.
Clemson
FSU

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Temple is a state university not a private university.It is a major research university with a medical school,enginnering school etc.Its academic ratings as far as research and funding are superior to that of bc.Of course bc has better parties and a more attractive campus.If bc had stayed in the BE,USF would not have been invited to the BE.The basis of the BE suit vs bc is that they agreed to stay in the BE,even after miami and votech had left.Whether the acc would have taken USF for its 12th member is doubtful,since miami and flast probably thought 2 florida schools were enough.Possibly since the acc likes Temple so much,maybe they would have been the 12th team.

Quinn, agreed Penn State would have been a better choice for ACC over BC.

The major reason the ACC did not go after Penn State, the Big 10 is superior to the ACC.

The ACC was interested in Penn State until the Big 10 step in and the ACC had no opportunity to get the school once the Big 10 offerered membership.

Without Penn State, the ACC can never claim the eastern seaboard markets north of Maryland.

After the NCAA ruled that football championship games require 12 team conference, the ACC should have put more thought into which team to bring the conference to 12. Boston College was not the best choice.

My guess is the ACC officials were concerned that Duke and North Carolina may influence the conference on further expansion if there were any more delays. And we all know that Miami was dead set on a 12 team format. Since the school does not travel well for games except national championship games, I never got the big reason for Miami push to 12 teams in the ACC. Miami better help fill away stadium as the school will be the most likely partipate in most ACC championship games. ACC may be best to have the championship game in Miami to ensure there will be Miami fans in the stands.

BC in the second round was a hastily decision that may prove to backfire on the ACC.

The ACC should have waited and tried again to get the 12 team rule changed.

Only time will tell if BC was good move to reach 12. Without Syracuse in the mix, BC really looks like and odd ball.

JoePa said that if the Big10 didn't invite PSU, PSU was going to try to get an invite from the ACC. It was really close with PSU getting an invite to the Big10. IIRC that the ADs didn't want PSU and if the Presidents didn't work behind the scenes it wouldn't have worked. I think NU (Or Illinois?) was the swing vote? They voted yes and the rest is history.

What is interesting aobut SU is that they were considered for ACC expansion in 1991 (along with FSU) after PSU => Big10 and about the time the Big12 formed and SEC expanded. Croumathel (SU AD) was lukewarm to the idea and the informal vote was 4-4. The ACC then proceeded to look at FSU.

Then, of course this recent expansion, SU was lukewarm again (or at least it appeared) and the ACC took VT (with political help).

SU had the opportunity twice to get into the ACC.

Although it would never happen considering the economics of Div 1 FB, I think alot of problems would be allieviated if 6 conferences would goto 14 or 16 teams.

Who knew that the the Div II PSAC would cause such dramatic change Div 1 FB (ie the ruling that 12 teams in a conference get a championship game)?

Please PantherSC97, two wrongs do not make a right.

We have 12 team conferences because college football has to similate a playoff for us deprived playoff football fans and die hard SEC football fans.

The last thing college sports needs to expand to 14. The BE 14 team format was awful.

What college sports needs and will not get is a balanced 9 or 10 team conference alignments with each champions advancing to the playoff.

College sports is trying to simiilate and make the revenue of the NFL without any organization alignment to back it up.

Would the Baltimore Ravins or the Washington Redskins be able to jump from the eastern division to a southern division just to make some more cash and pick up additiional TV revenue.

Major issue with college sports today is greedy conferences controlling the sports and the NCAA is powerless. This would never happen in the NFL.

Lash -

This is really for the "dream" conferences, but here it goes:

My point was that if you have 14-16 conference members, you could split into 2 seven or eight team "mini-conferences". The conferences would be "loose" confederations with a few crossover games. You could either have championship games or take the champions from each seven or eight team "mini-division" for a playoff.

You could break it up into 5-6 regions. The only teams that would have to switch conferences would be from the BE or non-BCS leagues anyway which aren't that 'traditional' outside of the MAC. These would combine with the 5 'power' conferences thereby minimizing movement from 'power players'. I agree that a 9 or 10 team conference would be much better (if you kicked out 2-3 members for the power conferences).

I understand once you get over a certain size that conference membership doesn't really mean anything and you have different missions, etc, etc. It's just thinking outside the box for a minute.