Big 12 expansion? Apparently BYU folks...

[GoWVU]

The thing they are interested in most is money, so that's what will determine their choices on expansion. Football and TV markets are what bring in more money, not basketball.

Don't misunderstand...we all get how the process happened and what factors drove the decisions. I was more or less just wondering aloud how close UConn came to being one of the ACC's choices instead given that conference's unique stance on basketball v. football.

 

[topdecktiger]

Go back and read history. It was not about money that the ACC raided the Big East; it was about survival. The Big East was eclipsing the ACC in all sports and Miami had just won the national championship (2001). The ACC was dying and had to do something. Fortunately for them, they had an all-sports conference that actually worked equally for all sports and members. I realize that is not exactly true, as basketball has and always will be king so long as there is an ACC, but I digress. The Big East was saddled with horrible and some would say evil leadership that had an agenda counter to the schools supporting all sports.

The Big East football schools nearly broke away from the basketball schools and there were talks of inviting the like-minded schools from the ACC to form a new conference. That effort died when the name Big East fought over. No one wants to take the risk that the BCS would follow the new conference since it was tied to the name.

While more money was made by the ACC over the raid it was not money that started the process - it was all about survival for the ACC.

The problems is, you aren't going by "history." You just make up something in you head that you want to be true, and then state it as fact. The ACC wasn't "dying." Florida St has just won the national championship in 1999, and played for it again in 2000. Duke won the NCAA tournament in 2001, after making the final in 1999. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your story.

Don't misunderstand...we all get how the process happened and what factors drove the decisions. I was more or less just wondering aloud how close UConn came to being one of the ACC's choices instead given that conference's unique stance on basketball v. football.

UConn didn't get close. Syracuse was always a leading candidate. They were an original candidate in 2003 before the Virginia legislature got involved. When Maryland left, UConn wasn't even an option. Florida St and Clemson immediately pushed for Louisville.

One of the reasons I made that previous post is because the ACC doesn't have a "stance" on basketball. The reason ACC schools tend to be better at basketball is because, on the whole, the ACC schools are smaller that other P5 schools. For example, UVA has about 15,000 undergraduates. UNC has about 18,000. By comparison, Wisconsin has about 29,000 undergraduates and Michigan has about 28,000. The point being, football costs a lot more than basketball, so larger schools have the advantage in that sport. In basketball, you only need about 12 players on a team, so it's easier for smaller schools to compete in that sport. That's why in football, teams like Boise St are such a rare thing, whereas in basketball, you have a plethora of small schools that excel like Villanova, Butler, Gonzaga, etc.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The problems is, you aren't going by "history." You just make up something in you head that you want to be true, and then state it as fact. The ACC wasn't "dying." Florida St has just won the national championship in 1999, and played for it again in 2000. Duke won the NCAA tournament in 2001, after making the final in 1999. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your story.



UConn didn't get close. Syracuse was always a leading candidate. They were an original candidate in 2003 before the Virginia legislature got involved. When Maryland left, UConn wasn't even an option. Florida St and Clemson immediately pushed for Louisville.

One of the reasons I made that previous post is because the ACC doesn't have a "stance" on basketball. The reason ACC schools tend to be better at basketball is because, on the whole, the ACC schools are smaller that other P5 schools. For example, UVA has about 15,000 undergraduates. UNC has about 18,000. By comparison, Wisconsin has about 29,000 undergraduates and Michigan has about 28,000. The point being, football costs a lot more than basketball, so larger schools have the advantage in that sport. In basketball, you only need about 12 players on a team, so it's easier for smaller schools to compete in that sport. That's why in football, teams like Boise St are such a rare thing, whereas in basketball, you have a plethora of small schools that excel like Villanova, Butler, Gonzaga, etc.

I see your point, but the size of the school is sometimes unrelated to football success. Two schools that quickly come to mind are Miami and TCU with 11,000 and 8,600 undergraduates respectively. I guess wealthy alumni that love football helps!

 

[topdecktiger]

I see your point, but the size of the school is sometimes unrelated to football success. Two schools that quickly come to mind are Miami and TCU with 11,000 and 8,600 undergraduates respectively. I guess wealthy alumni that love football helps!

I understand that it's not impossible. That's why I made it a point to reference Boise St. However, generally, the best football teams are the biggest schools. TCU hasn't historically been good. They have been good since Gary Patterson got there. Historically, they haven't been good in decades. Now contrast that with the teams that are consistently good historically. Alabama, Ohio St, Michigan, USC, Texas, etc. In general, the big schools tend to be better at football. You see smaller schools being more competitive in basketball, where you need fewer players and fewer resources.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

Lol Kevin Stallings

What does your post even mean? We're talking expansion retard.

 

[Orlaco]

Sounds like you have a point or two to make, perhaps you would care to share your opinions.

Not really trying to (re)open a can of worms but....

--It was widely rumored that WVU and Pitt were paired (and conspiring) to join the ACC...but the ACC balked when it came to the EERS and instead invited 'Cuse (which Pitt was completely ok with...understandably). OL was completely blindsided.

---WVU pledged loyalty to the BE to the very last minute....even though we, and everyone else, knew that we were heading to another conference.

It was dirty business and it needed to be... ...but let's not pretend WVU was above participating.....

 

[Charleston Mountie]

The problems is, you aren't going by "history." You just make up something in you head that you want to be true, and then state it as fact. The ACC wasn't "dying." Florida St has just won the national championship in 1999, and played for it again in 2000. Duke won the NCAA tournament in 2001, after making the final in 1999. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your story.

I never let facts get in the way of my story, they are my story. You are flat out wrong on this topic, give it up, I was there. Your problem is genetic, slap your mother.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Not really trying to (re)open a can of worms but....

--It was widely rumored that WVU and Pitt were paired (and conspiring) to join the ACC...but the ACC balked when it came to the EERS and instead invited 'Cuse (which Pitt was completely ok with...understandably). OL was completely blindsided.

---WVU pledged loyalty to the BE to the very last minute....even though we, and everyone else, knew that we were heading to another conference.

It was dirty business and it needed to be... ...but let's not pretend WVU was above participating.....

WVU was NEVER in any talks to go to the ACC and WVU wanted very much to be and tried multiple times. The ACC told WVU to go pound each and every time. WVU was never paired with anyone in talks to the ACC. WVU, since it has joined the ACC has been a supporting member, doing it's duty and going above and beyond - such as when the lawsuit was handled - that was led by WVU. WVU was the heavy lifter in the conference after the raid and worked accordingly with its loyalty to the Big East, which was very hard to do at the time because Notre Dame was the Big East speed dial for football issues and not WVU. You do recall that it was Notre Dame that was put in charge of football expansion when the raid took place right?

WVU did not make a move to exit the Big East until it was blatantly obvious the ship was going down...long past the time it should have been seeking a way out. I realize you have an opinion on this and remember it a certain way but I do not think you recall things as they actually were.

Your back up is here-say.

 

[GoWVU]

One of the reasons I made that previous post is because the ACC doesn't have a "stance" on basketball.

I didn't mean "stance" in the context of "an official position", but rather in the figurative sense that the ACC was (at the times those expansion decisions were made)--and still is now--the lone conference which might've been straddling both revenue sports with a more balanced weight on each leg relative to the other P5 leagues.

Of course, even in the ACC certainly there was still more financial concern and enphasis on football as you mention--nobody disputes that--but I was wondering if the ACC might be closer to a, say, 70/30 type emphasis instead of 99/1 like the others...especially if what we've all frequently heard about the ACC's real power lying on Tobacco Road is true.

To me it would just be fascinating to know the actual degree to which the ACC is different than the other P5 conferences in that specific respect. Maybe it isn't at all, as you seem to imply, and I can also believe that. However, it's not implausible to suggest that its focus is a bit more divided than the other leagues--we simply have no idea by how much.

Your point on the smaller roster size of basketball teams providing a greater array of schools with a chance to be good in that sport is well-taken, but perhaps the corollary assertion about football isn't quite so neatly-drawn as it might seem at first.

While it seems persuasive to say that larger undergraduate student bodies generally correlate with success in football, because of its roster volume requirements, I wonder if your characterization of those big schools and/or traditional powers could be slightly more problematic.

For example, both USC and Nebraska would meet most definitions of traditional powers and nouveau riche Oregon has ascended to that level as well. Yet all have undergrad enrollments less than WVU's.

Your caveat about exceptions being duly noted, it'd be interesting to see A) what the average enrollments were for the various P5 schools and conferences over the years, and B) whether the correlation is quite so strong as you believe.

My instinct would be to say there probably is one, but that it might be weaker than popularly assumed. I'd guess money flowing into the program--thus my inclusion of Oregon--would outrank undergrad enrollments by quite a bit, wouldn't you think?

Anyway, thanks for the conversation, topdeck. Some interesting tangents you found for the normally monotonous expansion topic.

 

[Orlaco]

WVU was NEVER in any talks to go to the ACC and WVU wanted very much to be and tried multiple times. The ACC told WVU to go pound each and every time. WVU was never paired with anyone in talks to the ACC. WVU, since it has joined the ACC has been a supporting member, doing it's duty and going above and beyond - such as when the lawsuit was handled - that was led by WVU. WVU was the heavy lifter in the conference after the raid and worked accordingly with its loyalty to the Big East, which was very hard to do at the time because Notre Dame was the Big East speed dial for football issues and not WVU. You do recall that it was Notre Dame that was put in charge of football expansion when the raid took place right?

WVU did not make a move to exit the Big East until it was blatantly obvious the ship was going down...long past the time it should have been seeking a way out. I realize you have an opinion on this and remember it a certain way but I do not think you recall things as they actually were.

Your back up is here-say.

Actually...what you just typed is no more valid than what I expressed.... ...the diff is that I was smart enough to mention that it was 'rumors' (aka speculation...aka opinion).

WVU begged to join the ACC. They said no.

WVU begged to join the SEC. They said no.

WVU begged to join the Big 12. ....hurt and confused about their future (stability) they EVENTUALLY said yes (a second time)...

.....all the while WVU was claiming to be 'all in' with the BE. Baghdad Bob did a better job of hiding the truth than our school.....

 

[topdecktiger]

I didn't mean "stance" in the context of "an official position", but rather in the figurative sense that the ACC was (at the times those expansion decisions were made)--and still is now--the lone conference which might've been straddling both revenue sports with a more balanced weight on each leg relative to the other P5 leagues.

Of course, even in the ACC certainly there was still more financial concern and enphasis on football as you mention--nobody disputes that--but I was wondering if the ACC might be closer to a, say, 70/30 type emphasis instead of 99/1 like the others...especially if what we've all frequently heard about the ACC's real power lying on Tobacco Road is true.

To me it would just be fascinating to know the actual degree to which the ACC is different than the other P5 conferences in that specific respect. Maybe it isn't at all, as you seem to imply, and I can also believe that. However, it's not implausible to suggest that its focus is a bit more divided than the other leagues--we simply have no idea by how much.

Your point on the smaller roster size of basketball teams providing a greater array of schools with a chance to be good in that sport is well-taken, but perhaps the corollary assertion about football isn't quite so neatly-drawn as it might seem at first.

While it seems persuasive to say that larger undergraduate student bodies generally correlate with success in football, because of its roster volume requirements, I wonder if your characterization of those big schools and/or traditional powers could be slightly more problematic.

For example, both USC and Nebraska would meet most definitions of traditional powers and nouveau riche Oregon has ascended to that level as well. Yet all have undergrad enrollments less than WVU's.

Your caveat about exceptions being duly noted, it'd be interesting to see A) what the average enrollments were for the various P5 schools and conferences over the years, and B) whether the correlation is quite so strong as you believe.

My instinct would be to say there probably is one, but that it might be weaker than popularly assumed. I'd guess money flowing into the program--thus my inclusion of Oregon--would outrank undergrad enrollments by quite a bit, wouldn't you think?

Anyway, thanks for the conversation, topdeck. Some interesting tangents you found for the normally monotonous expansion topic.

There isn't a demonstrable difference in the ACC's focus on football (as a conference) relative to the other leagues. This is one of those times where people believe perception is reality. The fact that the ACC is more successful in basketball doesn't mean the ACC is somehow less focused on football than the other leagues. It goes back to what I said. The ACC has relatively smaller schools then the other P5 leagues. That means they historically haven't had as many resources to compete in football as the bigger schools. Duke is a perfect example. They are a power in basketball, but usually suck in football. That's because Duke doesn't have the resources to compete consistently in football. In basketball you don't need as much money, so it's easier for them to compete, hence the disparity in success. Look at the makeup of the ACC members. Duke and Wake Forest are two tiny private schools. Clemson and Georgia Tech are two smaller than average teams in states with larger state universities. Conferences like the SEC and Big Ten are made up mostly of big state flagship schools. It makes logical sense that they would do better in basketball than football.

You are right that money is the most important thing. The point is, the size of a school directly influences how much money it has. A school with higher enrollment has more alumni. More alumni means a larger donor base. There are other means to bring in money (see Oregon), but generally, the bigger schools have the more money and are more successful. You brought up West Virginia. Well, West Virginia is a successful program. Another poster brought up TCU. Well, West Virginia has a more successful program than TCU. TCU might have had a better team the last couple of years, but over the last 30-odd years, West Virginia has clearly been the more successful program. West Virginia played for national championships in 1988 and 93. The last time TCU played for a national championship, Roosevelt was still in office. That's no surprise, given West Virginia has a much bigger alumni/fan base than TCU, and thus has greater resources. If you look at the list of champions in the modern era, the majority of them are big state schools.

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

Not sure a re branding would fly with LSU, but if ULL could rename themselves University of Louisiana, I wouldn't mind having the Cajuns join the Big 12.

 

[CE4WVU]

There isn't a demonstrable difference in the ACC's focus on football (as a conference) relative to the other leagues. This is one of those times where people believe perception is reality. The fact that the ACC is more successful in basketball doesn't mean the ACC is somehow less focused on football than the other leagues. It goes back to what I said. The ACC has relatively smaller schools then the other P5 leagues. That means they historically haven't had as many resources to compete in football as the bigger schools. Duke is a perfect example. They are a power in basketball, but usually suck in football. That's because Duke doesn't have the resources to compete consistently in football. In basketball you don't need as much money, so it's easier for them to compete, hence the disparity in success. Look at the makeup of the ACC members. Duke and Wake Forest are two tiny private schools. Clemson and Georgia Tech are two smaller than average teams in states with larger state universities. Conferences like the SEC and Big Ten are made up mostly of big state flagship schools. It makes logical sense that they would do better in basketball than football.

You are right that money is the most important thing. The point is, the size of a school directly influences how much money it has. A school with higher enrollment has more alumni. More alumni means a larger donor base. There are other means to bring in money (see Oregon), but generally, the bigger schools have the more money and are more successful. You brought up West Virginia. Well, West Virginia is a successful program. Another poster brought up TCU. Well, West Virginia has a more successful program than TCU. TCU might have had a better team the last couple of years, but over the last 30-odd years, West Virginia has clearly been the more successful program. West Virginia played for national championships in 1988 and 93. The last time TCU played for a national championship, Roosevelt was still in office. That's no surprise, given West Virginia has a much bigger alumni/fan base than TCU, and thus has greater resources. If you look at the list of champions in the modern era, the majority of them are big state schools.

I recall several years ago where ESPN interviewed Mack Brown when he was starting his first year coaching at Texas. In it, he made mention of the fans in the ACC and during his time coaching at UNC... he stated most ACC schools and in particular the fans of those schools, saw football as nothing more than a entertainment filler until hardcourt season hit.

Now that might have been true then compared to now, but if you ask most UVA, UNC, NC State and Duke fans which sport the look forward to more, most will tell you it's basketball...

Fans of teams like VT, GT, FSU, Miami will give you the opposite opinion, where football is king...

 

[topdecktiger]

I recall several years ago where ESPN interviewed Mack Brown when he was starting his first year coaching at Texas. In it, he made mention of the fans in the ACC and during his time coaching at UNC... he stated most ACC schools and in particular the fans of those schools, saw football as nothing more than a entertainment filler until hardcourt season hit.

Now that might have been true then compared to now, but if you ask most UVA, UNC, NC State and Duke fans which sport the look forward to more, most will tell you it's basketball...

Fans of teams like VT, GT, FSU, Miami will give you the opposite opinion, where football is king...

I'm sure those schools do look for to basketball more than football. They are better at basketball. You obviously get more excited about something you are more successful at doing.

 

[still5-0vstarheels]

I'm sure those schools do look for to basketball more than football. They are better at basketball. You obviously get more excited about something you are more successful at doing.

Yea I have been to several Clemson basketball games and can understand why they don't get excited about it. Now the atmosphere for football is something else.

 

[GoWVU]

Yea I have been to several Clemson basketball games and can understand why they don't get excited about it. Now the atmosphere for football is something else.

I'm interested how a Clemson home game compares to some other schools. Not sure where it sits on my list of campuses I haven't visited yet, but it seems like one that a serious fan ought to see at some point.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yea I have been to several Clemson basketball games and can understand why they don't get excited about it. Now the atmosphere for football is something else.

Actually, the one worry most ACC coaches mention when playing Clemson in basketball is the crowd. Not the actual team, but that sometimes Clemson has been able to steal some games because the game was close and the crowd shifted the momentum.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

Not really trying to (re)open a can of worms but....

--It was widely rumored that WVU and Pitt were paired (and conspiring) to join the ACC...but the ACC balked when it came to the EERS and instead invited 'Cuse (which Pitt was completely ok with...understandably). OL was completely blindsided.

---WVU pledged loyalty to the BE to the very last minute....even though we, and everyone else, knew that we were heading to another conference.

It was dirty business and it needed to be... ...but let's not pretend WVU was above participating.....

Not even close to accurate. Cuse and UCONN were the two and BC went nuts Over UCONN leaving the spot for Pitt. WVU was not seriously considered for that round of expansion. Pitt and WVU worked closely together to save Big East after VT, Miami and BC departed but WVU was never in the ACC plans. Your narative isn't accurate. And, using the concept of "rumor" is lame excuse for trolling Pittzit. There were about ten programs trying to secure just a few lifelines. WVU was fortunate to land one of them. The ACC would be great for WVU imo. But landing a spot in the Big 12 was just as important as if WVU landed in ACC.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

After being repeatedly snubbed by the 'holier than thou' tobacco road club, WVU did what it had to do to survive. The Big 12 was and is a blessing for the Mountaineers. When it comes to an expansion vote, I hope WVU remembers where they came from.

 

[topdecktiger]

Cuse and UCONN were the two and BC went nuts Over UCONN leaving the spot for Pitt. .

That part isn't actually true. UConn wasn't in the picture. The ACC was advised by ESPN that Pitt/Syracuse was going to bring the biggest increase in the TV contract, so those were the two candidates from day one. Boston College's opinion didn't even matter, because the money already favored Pitt over UConn from the jump.

 

[skygusty_rivals]

Yet another thread on expansion that started way out west in Utah devolves into a predictable rehashing of the ACC from Shoulda, Woulda and Coulda. To quote Hall and Oates, she's gone, better learn how to face it.

 

[~IRWT~]

Obviously West Virginia would have been the best addition to the ACC from a football credibility standpoint when Pitt & Syracuse were added. I am sure there was some serious back and forth on adding WVU in lieu of either one. We represent a small population state and that is just a fact of life. Big12 added us and TCU because their survival rested first and foremost on adding solid football schools to legitimize what was left of their (our) conference. We were damn lucky to be on a hot streak.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

That part isn't actually true. UConn wasn't in the picture. The ACC was advised by ESPN that Pitt/Syracuse was going to bring the biggest increase in the TV contract, so those were the two candidates from day one. Boston College's opinion didn't even matter, because the money already favored Pitt over UConn from the jump.

Know for a fact that you're wrong and I'm right

 

[Pitt4Life34]

Obviously West Virginia would have been the best addition to the ACC from a football credibility standpoint when Pitt & Syracuse were added. I am sure there was some serious back and forth on adding WVU in lieu of either one. We represent a small population state and that is just a fact of life. Big12 added us and TCU because their survival rested first and foremost on adding solid football schools to legitimize what was left of their (our) conference. We were damn lucky to be on a hot streak.

WVU was not a serious candidate for the ACC in that round of expansion. ACC consulting group couldn't get by WVUs achademic issue. Pitt couldn't help WVU even though Pitt Chan Nordburg was very fond of WVU leadership.

 

[Orlaco]

Not even close to accurate. Cuse and UCONN were the two and BC went nuts Over UCONN leaving the spot for Pitt. WVU was not seriously considered for that round of expansion. Pitt and WVU worked closely together to save Big East after VT, Miami and BC departed but WVU was never in the ACC plans. Your narative isn't accurate. And, using the concept of "rumor" is lame excuse for trolling Pittzit. There were about ten programs trying to secure just a few lifelines. WVU was fortunate to land one of them. The ACC would be great for WVU imo. But landing a spot in the Big 12 was just as important as if WVU landed in ACC.

I used 'widely rumored' for a specific reason..... ...so when someone replied to my post with opinions based on NOTHING but rumors yet expressed as facts I could ridicule their entire post.

The best part is that you did all the work for me.

-----------------

So again you express that I'm also a Pitt poster named Pittzit.... ...which might be the most accurate part of your post, as it's a complete fabrication (or mistake/same result) on your part.

 

[CE4WVU]

WVU was not a serious candidate for the ACC in that round of expansion. ACC consulting group couldn't get by WVUs academic issue. Pitt couldn't help WVU even though Pitt Chan Nordburg was very fond of WVU leadership.

Strange that the ACC was okay with Louisville despite their academics being somewhat similar in ranking to ours not that long ago. UNC's issues with their academic scandal mess but still want to bring up issues with the academics at WVU for why they're never considered. That's just weird...

Personally, I think the old Southern Conference members that up and left WVU holding the bag and make up the ACC, have a lot of pretentious personal reasons for why they don't want us... especially the last 5 times expansion happened with the ACC. I personally don't care for them... lot of hypocrisy, lot of deception the last two times they took schools from the Big East. First time with Miami, VT and BC, and then attempting to have WVU holding the bag again with Cuse and Pitt jumping ship.

We get it ACC, you don't want WVU and the people of WV messing up the wine and cheese culture of the ACC. The Big 12 has been good to us and can't say most of us are unhappy with our new conference home.

 

[topdecktiger]

Know for a fact that you're wrong and I'm right

No you don't.

Strange that the ACC was okay with Louisville despite their academics being somewhat similar in ranking to ours not that long ago.

Academics aren't the issue. This again goes back to money. The problem for West Virginia is not having a big TV market to add to the footprint. It's been established beyond doubt that TV markets/money is the biggest factor in expansion, see: Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Missouri, Colorado, Utah.

 

[Orlaco]

Academics aren't the issue. This again goes back to money. The problem for West Virginia is not having a big TV market to add to the footprint. .

For the record....I have a 65 inch tv...like many of my friends...

I'm not sure where you're getting the stats regarding WV's tv market but they're obviously flawed !!!

 

[CE4WVU]

The TV market issue can't be explained as well as one might think the last four times since the 1950s as to why WVU was turned down. Nearly every message board and blog mentioning WVU and ACC speaks of academics and why WVU isn't a part of the ACC as to why they got turned down.

Can't explain how the Blacksburg market is any bigger than the Pittsburgh market, although VA politics played a part in VT being brought in back in 2003.

No you don't.



Academics aren't the issue. This again goes back to money. The problem for West Virginia is not having a big TV market to add to the footprint. It's been established beyond doubt that TV markets/money is the biggest factor in expansion, see: Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Missouri, Colorado, Utah.

 

[topdecktiger]

For the record....I have a 65 inch tv...like many of my friends...

I'm not sure where you're getting the stats regarding WV's tv market but they're obviously flawed !!!

No, they aren't. The state of West Virginia has a population of 1.85 million.

The population of the state of Pennsylvania is 12.79 million.

The population of New York state is 19.75 million.

That's where I'm getting my numbers, and they aren't flawed. That's how the TV networks look at it. Whatever metric you use doesn't matter. That only on that matters is the one used by the TV networks.

The TV market issue can't be explained as well as one might think the last four times since the 1950s as to why WVU was turned down. Nearly every message board and blog mentioning WVU and ACC speaks of academics and why WVU isn't as to why they got turned down.

Can't explain how the Blacksburg market is any bigger than the Pittsburgh market, although VA politics played a part in VT being brought in back in 2003.
Th

I'm not attempting to explain what happened in the 50s or the 70s. That's irrelevant to modern-day expansion. Back then, conferences didn't have their own TV contracts. It was a completely different world. Using message boards to support your position is not evidence. It's silly to even say that. You said you were definitively right, and your evidence is "message boards." Pretty big fail there.

Your point about Virginia Tech is also wrong. VA politics is the only reason Virginia Tech got into the ACC. Otherwise, it would have been Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College, which was clearly for TV markets. If Virginia Tech had not been accepted, the ACC could not have expanded at all, since they didn't have enough votes. Virginia Tech wasn't accepted on any of its own merits. VT was accepted because that was the only way for the ACC to get Miami and Boston College, and to have a CCG.

 

[still5-0vstarheels]

Actually, the one worry most ACC coaches mention when playing Clemson in basketball is the crowd. Not the actual team, but that sometimes Clemson has been able to steal some games because the game was close and the crowd shifted the momentum.

Well you are good for a laugh.

 

[topdecktiger]

Well you are good for a laugh.

Blame the other coaches, not me. They are the ones that say that, not me.

 

[still5-0vstarheels]

Blame the other coaches, not me. They are the ones that say that, not me.

Dude I have been to see Clemson play. Even saw them beat UNC. The atmosphere just does not compare. Love the campus and the football atmosphere though.

 

[Orlaco]

No, they aren't. The state of West Virginia has a population of 1.85 million.

The population of the state of Pennsylvania is 12.79 million.

The population of New York state is 19.75 million.

That's where I'm getting my numbers, and they aren't flawed. That's how the TV networks look at it. Whatever metric you use doesn't matter. That only on that matters is the one used by the TV networks.
.

Take a deep breath.....and relax.

You wrote WV wasn't a big tv market and I replied about owning, like many of my friends, a 65 inch tv. So if many other WVians own large screen tv's the state is in fact a 'big tv' market. I bet you can find more than one brand at Best Buy even....

It was just a play on words that should have been obvious......

 

[Pitt4Life34]

No you don't.



Academics aren't the issue. This again goes back to money. The problem for West Virginia is not having a big TV market to add to the footprint. It's been established beyond doubt that TV markets/money is the biggest factor in expansion, see: Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Missouri, Colorado, Utah.

Let it go. You're stating the obvious. No news here. ACC was not interested in wvu for multiple reasons. Made sense for Big 12 because BYU eliminated themselves. WVU was respected more than Cinci. I had access to ESPN and ACC decision making process at the time. That might bother you but deal with it.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

Strange that the ACC was okay with Louisville despite their academics being somewhat similar in ranking to ours not that long ago. UNC's issues with their academic scandal mess but still want to bring up issues with the academics at WVU for why they're never considered. That's just weird...

Personally, I think the old Southern Conference members that up and left WVU holding the bag and make up the ACC, have a lot of pretentious personal reasons for why they don't want us... especially the last 5 times expansion happened with the ACC. I personally don't care for them... lot of hypocrisy, lot of deception the last two times they took schools from the Big East. First time with Miami, VT and BC, and then attempting to have WVU holding the bag again with Cuse and Pitt jumping ship.

We get it ACC, you don't want WVU and the people of WV messing up the wine and cheese culture of the ACC. The Big 12 has been good to us and can't say most of us are unhappy with our new conference home.

Nope you got me pegged wrong. I would love wvu in ACC. I go to a game or two per year. Just had the inside scoop. Louisville was all about ESPN. That simple.

 

[CE4WVU]

This wasn't aimed at you, was just a general statement aimed more at/about the ACC.

Nope you got me pegged wrong. I would love wvu in ACC. I go to a game or two per year. Just had the inside scoop. Louisville was all about ESPN. That simple.