I think they're content with the current makeup until UConn and/or UC leave. If the B1G plucks 2 from the ACC, the ACC will pluck two from the Big East, and those 2 schools are the favorites, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37
Printable View
I think they're content with the current makeup until UConn and/or UC leave. If the B1G plucks 2 from the ACC, the ACC will pluck two from the Big East, and those 2 schools are the favorites, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37
I can understand those reasons but then why did Georgetown, St. John's, etc. vote to add in FULL membership to programs like Tulane when they could have said collectively "we'll let you add football only members in but not full time members". That would have prevented the football only members from having a vote in league matters and could have forced the football playing schools to leave the BE and form a new leauge versus the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37
Would the ACC really need to add two more if they lost two?Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreX
It's all in the semantics (as we all know well). Whether there has been any "outreach" may be debatable. But I have it on perfect authority that conversations have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37
Frankly I think the MSG contract is a joke. I'd rather be in Barclay's. As for the $$$, well there's not much that can be done about that. But if they are going to stick for the $$$, they should do it for only a full share of the TV revenue (football or no football). It's the only thing that might arguably make up for destroying their brand on the court.
Yes, considering the schools that will most likely be lost next. Notwithstanding the ill will (from UConn's former lawsuit) and BC getting vocal about blocking them, the ACC probably would see a great deal of value in gaining the UConn market, keeping in mind that all this is very relative at this point, in terms of defining value in a degrading situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by _LH
Even UC might look appealing to them now, given that they just let in UL and that UC has an historical reputation for hoops. They would look past the YTG in making such a decision; they can tolerate a douchebag, knowing he won't be there forever.
It's 1:30 PM EST. It appears as though the tweets about G Tech were premature. Still, I can't see the realignment carrousel stopping from here. And so on we go.......
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash
If two more leave the ACC, that would put them at 10 football playing schools. Obviously they would want to be 12 members to have a conference title game but replacing any of the currently 12 with UCONN and UC does not seem to make much sense. They maybe better off sitting tight at 10. They would have to know that if they were to lose two more that it would be the start of losing others as well. It might not be wise to add, just to add to stop the bleeding so to speak because they would then be stuck with some programs they would not want otherwise. It is easy to add teams but not easy to get rid of them. Would there be any rush to be at 12 teams, especially when the best options look to be UCONN and UC.
Wouldn't Temple make more sense than UC as well?
I would giggle like a schoolgirl if that happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by _LH
Good point about Temple.Quote:
Originally Posted by _LH
Otherwise, there is no clear best way to navigate this, because no one can be certain when the next B4 conference is going to make a move and then know what chain reaction such a move may set-off. So, let's say they sit tight at 10 - their conference championship is an abject failure anyway. But then the B1G actually comes around to announcing the "acquisition" of G Tech. Then it takes - pick one - UVA or UNC. That puts the SEC in motion, resulting in them raiding two more teams.
How do you conduct conference affairs from there? This doesn't even consider the Big XII coming in after FSU, etc.
They replaced UM with UL, after some internal squabbling, virtually immediately. It seems as though they have to continue with a simultaneous reaction to keep moving forward. My response presumes, as we sit here today, that, as an example, Maryland no longer has a vote in ACC matters, but Pitt and Syracuse do. In other words, once you've been accepted and your paperwork clears the ACC's front office, you have a vote, even if you haven't played game one in the league just yet.
If any conference has to shore itself up with the best remaining programs available upon taking a hit, the ACC is that conference. Perhaps UConn isn't regarded as a player by the B4, but I'm not sure the ACC has the luxury of thinking along those lines.
Actually, if we truly believe joining up with the BE hoops schools makes the most sense for Xavier's program, we want those @ssclowns out of our way. Perhaps that wouldn't be an issue if the BE hoops schools took absolute control of the league and pushed towards a hoops emphasis, but they're not inclined to do that at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BandAid
They see UC and Xavier being a wash, as far as having a Cincinnati program is concerned, which I take as a compliment, given that school size, etc. all factor into this, but they're still hopeful a reasonable hybrid can be salvaged.
I think the ACC will do what ESPN wants them to.