Texas to the Big 10????

[Irish in SEC country]

Irish - you have a short memory. So the ACC is #3 this year, they were #6 behind the Big East at portions last year. What you are seeing is a aberration not the norm. Over the past 10 years how many years has the ACC been better than the BIG? Right, 2013 is the only year. You are basing your assumption on the fact one years results show a larger trend. Show me 3-4 years of sustained ACC dominance and you may have a point, but as of now, the ACC is still the Atlantic Choke until they prove otherwise.
So Florida produces a ton of talent, yes, but so does Ohio and Pennsylvania. New Jersey and Maryland are on the rise too.

The cloud of probation will always be with Miami, its part of who they are. They have been on probation for one thing or another 3-4 times since the late 80's. They got off lightly now because the NCAA screwed up the investigation.

Ultimately, your argument is equivalent to someone pushing the stock on Pets.com before the bubble burst. Look the ACC is on the rise, we look good in the press but has not really done anything on paper and ultimately has no results.

The argument for the Big 10 is that it may not be the #1 conference right now or even the #2 conference but over the last 10-15 years has consistently ranked in the top 3 conferences in America. The acc over that same horizon has ranked as he 5th best conference. Even in a year where they are up and the next big thing, they behind the SEC and PAC.

Again, when the ACC does something worth noting, let me know and I will take notice, Until then, your argument is weak.

So which long term Big Ten football results are you touting? 2 national titles over the past 40 years? Is that the Big Ten gridiron excellence that boggles your mind?

If I didn't have a soft spot for Texas, your nonsense, which sounds like the garbage vomited repeatedly by various Big Ten fans, would be something I would like to see come to fruition. I would like to see Texas join the Big Ten, because within 20 years of making that move, Texas would be the rather definite #2 football program in TX behind TAMU.

The reason it would happen is that the SEC is exciting to the Nth degree while the Big Ten is bland defined. If the Longorns get tied to the midwest while the Aggies are tied to the southeast, the Aggies win huge over time.

Your lack of knowledge is amazing. For one thing, GA produces more football talent than OH and PA combined, and FL almost doubles GA. NC and VA each produce more than PA. The major talent is in the southeast, Texas, and California. OH and NJ are fine, but per capita both produce less than Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

The problem for the ACC in securing that talent that the SEC does not have is the smaller schools, most of them private. But as NFL rosters show, the ACC already holds its own in sending players to the NFL. And that is before the ND factor kicks in.

Yes, I have faith in what ND brings to the table. So does the Big Ten, which is so scared of what ND playing just 5 ACC games per year will mean to both ND and ACC football that it made a wild attempt to destabilize the ACC by taking Maryland.

10 years from now, I hope I remember to remind you and this board of your views.

 

[joebobb]

We will just have to agree to disagree here. I do look forward to seeing where things are five years Down the road

 

[Irish in SEC country]

We will just have to agree to disagree here. I do look forward to seeing where things are five years Down the road

Yes we will. Just as us ND fans and Big Ten fans will have to disagree. We want no part of their conference under any circumstances. The reasons are many and cannot be overcome.

As for football, the Big Ten has always been a lot of hot air. Meatchicken's history is crowned by greatness that peaked before WW1. The Big House cannot change that fact. Big Ten money cannot change the fact that the Big Ten has 2 national titles in football since the 1970s. That is 1 more than the WAC and half the number of the ACC.

Your determination to see ACC football reminds me of many Big Ten fans. They were so certain ND would eventually be willing to join, so certain that ND added to all their huge alumni associations might help them catch up a step or two to the SEC by drawing more national recruits, that our wise decision to pair with the ACC has left them numbed. They fear that ND will gain a good deal in recruiting the southeast at the same time that the rest of the ACC recruits better due to ND as a fixture on everyone's schedule. The result of that is that the Big Ten will flounder more while the ACC gets better and better.

And thus they console themselves by pretending that Maryland is a big time football power stolen from a league too helpless to keep it. Maryland, of course, is nothing in football. BC, a Jesuit school ND fans all love to taunt, last year was miserable, 2-10. And even BC last year averaged more fans per game than Maryland.

So the Big Ten fans keep telling themselves that soon, the Big Ten will destroy the ACC by taking Virginia and North Carolina, which send FSU, Miami, Clemson, VT, and GT to the SEC or Big 12, and then ND will have nothing.

You as a Texas fan ought to be much wiser than to believe Big Ten self-soothing fairy tales.

 

[joebobb]

You seem to feel that ND is joining the ACC in football. Not going to happen anytime soon. They value football independence more than anything and they also needed a lifeline to the bowls outside of the BCS. The ACC was the only conference willing to do this. 5 games was a heck of a concession for ND, but they were not negotiating from as powerful position as they were when they joined the Big East. If ND was negotiating that deal this year as opposed to last year, they would be in a more powerful position since they just played for the National Championship.

If Texas joins the ACC you talk about how great the competition is there. I see FSU and then who?? Clemson is a flaky team that really is the equivalent of Michigan State in the Big 10. They have had a couple decent years recently but look at the body of work over the last 30 years? Lets see what happens in 3-4 years to see if they are truly elite caliber.

Miami is on the rise, the question is can they sustain it without getting in more trouble with the NCAA. It seems to follow Miami every few years. However, even without that, So Florida was no longer the untapped market it was when Miami was the dominate program of the 80s. There are 8 FCS programs in Florida now compared to 3 back when Miami was competing back in the 80's/90's. In addition, Northern Schools, other ACC schools, SEC schools are heavily recruiting that market and are pulling talent away from Miami. After 2002, Maimi went in the tank, they had to reload and they couldn't, and that was before the taint of scandal hit. Can Miami have dominate teams again, yes, but will they dominate like they did in the 80/90s. No, that time has passed.

Va Tech - Equiv of Iowa out of the Big 10.

Ga Tech, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Cuse, Lou, Wake, Duke, BC?? Nice filler for the conference, not at al compelling, will never be a serious championship challenge.

So I see you passionately arguing for the ACC but again, all I hear is you argue potential, not what is actually happening.

The BIG may not be the SEC but I would take their teams compared to the ACC slate any day.

 

[Nakona Horn]

You seem to feel that ND is joining the ACC in football. Not going to happen anytime soon. They value football independence more than anything and they also needed a lifeline to the bowls outside of the BCS. The ACC was the only conference willing to do this. 5 games was a heck of a concession for ND, but they were not negotiating from as powerful position as they were when they joined the Big East. If ND was negotiating that deal this year as opposed to last year, they would be in a more powerful position since they just played for the National Championship.
If Texas joins the ACC you talk about how great the competition is there. I see FSU and then who?? Clemson is a flaky team that really is the equivalent of Michigan State in the Big 10. They have had a couple decent years recently but look at the body of work over the last 30 years? Lets see what happens in 3-4 years to see if they are truly elite caliber.

Miami is on the rise, the question is can they sustain it without getting in more trouble with the NCAA. It seems to follow Miami every few years. However, even without that, So Florida was no longer the untapped market it was when Miami was the dominate program of the 80s. There are 8 FCS programs in Florida now compared to 3 back when Miami was competing back in the 80's/90's. In addition, Northern Schools, other ACC schools, SEC schools are heavily recruiting that market and are pulling talent away from Miami. After 2002, Maimi went in the tank, they had to reload and they couldn't, and that was before the taint of scandal hit. Can Miami have dominate teams again, yes, but will they dominate like they did in the 80/90s. No, that time has passed.

Va Tech - Equiv of Iowa out of the Big 10.

Ga Tech, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Cuse, Lou, Wake, Duke, BC?? Nice filler for the conference, not at al compelling, will never be a serious championship challenge.

So I see you passionately arguing for the ACC but again, all I hear is you argue potential, not what is actually happening.

The BIG may not be the SEC but I would take their teams compared to the ACC slate any day.

You need to look three, five, and 10 years down the road to realize what our ND friend is saying. The ACC will will be a LOT different place in the future. You need to think ahead a little bit.

 

[TheContractor]

VT is by far greater than Iowa

 

[joebobb]

I understand what you are saying, about the 3-5-10 years down the road, but again those are speculative. That may not be true, essentially you need to "drink the Kool Aid" to buy into all of this. Remember, when the ACC got Miami, BC and Tech in 2004 and it was said they were going to be the most dominant conference ever. Well they ended up being #5 of the BCS conferences. Ultimately results matter and the ACC has not produced. If you look at success during the BCS era, Ohio State has played in more BCS bowl games than the entire ACC conference.

I am not saying your projections are going to be wrong. I am just saying that they are projections, which are nothing more than opinions, and no one really knows how the ACC is going to be in 10 years. But we do know how they have been the prior 10 and how the BIG has been, and over that span, the BIG has been better.

 

[JackAubrey]

Any discussion on this issue that doesn't end with "Texas and it's fans would be best served by joining the SEC." Is wasted breath, no conference has more to offer, better match ups, better fans, more accessible games than the SEC.

Texas. Bama

OU Auburn

Aggy Tenn

Arky. Vandy

LSU. Kentucky

Mizz. Fla

Ole Miss. Georgia

MState. SCarolina

 

[joebobb]

Jack - Agreed except for the fact that the BOR of UT does not want the SEC. Also, A&M may have a veto now too. Assuming the SEC would invite TX, would the board want to go to the SEC. From a fan's perspective, I completely agree with you. from the way the admin sees it, they are not SEC fans, the whole academic thing and all.

 

[JackAubrey]

Jack - Agreed except for the fact that the BOR of UT does not want the SEC. Also, A&M may have a veto now too. Assuming the SEC would invite TX, would the board want to go to the SEC. From a fan's perspective, I completely agree with you. from the way the admin sees it, they are not SEC fans, the whole academic thing and all.

Which always cracks me up considering the SEC is a better academic conference than the big 12. Plus it hasn't seemed to hurt Fla, Georgia or Vandy's academics.

 

[joebobb]

You forgot to include Mizzou and A&M which strengthened that area too. A&M is the top ranked school there academically.

I don't know if the SEC if viable anymore with A&M there first and holding a Veto

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Which always cracks me up considering the SEC is a better academic conference than the big 12. Plus it hasn't seemed to hurt Fla, Georgia or Vandy's academics.

Now that Missouri and TAMU are in the SEC, that is true.

It is also true that perfect for Texas football would be going to the SEC with OU.

But my guess is that neither of us those is ever going to carry weight with the UT administration. They will remain parked leading a southwestern plains conference. And if they feel that may not be best for the university, then they will explore the ACC option very closely.

It won't start with football. It will start by acknowledging that the 4 most prestigious, elite state universities of the old trans south, of the whole sweep of the Confederacy areas, are Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Texas. The first 3 are in the ACC. Texas joining them makes sense on multiple levels, with the general academic/cultural ties/snobbery leading the way. The only conference with 2 of the originally designated Public Ivys is the ACC: UVA and UNC. Texas was also on that list. GT and Pitt were both on the Worthy Runners Up list.

The Frank the Tank guy in Chicago has said that the reason the Big Ten has no chance to lure UVA and UNC is that they get the best of both worlds in the ACC - they get a mostly southern conference with mostly elite schools, that now also has direct exposure in major national areas like Boston, NY, and Chicago. That is great not merely for long term health of ACC foootball but also for the long term academic stature of the ACC's schools.

There a lot of UT administrators who will see the ACC exactly the same way - it will give Texas both a national conference, or as close as can be managed, while also linking Texas to the most elite schools in its larger region that play FBS football. In addition to UVA, UNC and GT, that includes Duke, Wake, and Miami. Even Clemson is part of that. It is the only Ag school college in the nation that is ranked higher academically than the state's flagship university.

All of that is going to make it rather easy for UT administrators to just say No to any demands to join the SEC. They will emphasize that if UT is in a conference with those schools, as well as with BC, Syracuse, Pitt and ND (especially with ND), UT will get even more applications from the best students from across the southeast, northeast and midwest. That to them will trump any desires to play Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, A&M, OU, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State annually (and if UT and OU were to join the SEC, that would be the West).

They will reject any call to go Big Ten by stressing the best of both worlds that Frank Tank says means Big Ten and SEC both have no shot to get UVA and UNC. And the majority of Longhorns football boosters will agree that the liabilities of Big Ten football are so large that it should be a last option, well after the Pac.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

I understand what you are saying, about the 3-5-10 years down the road, but again those are speculative. That may not be true, essentially you need to "drink the Kool Aid" to buy into all of this. Remember, when the ACC got Miami, BC and Tech in 2004 and it was said they were going to be the most dominant conference ever. Well they ended up being #5 of the BCS conferences. Ultimately results matter and the ACC has not produced. If you look at success during the BCS era, Ohio State has played in more BCS bowl games than the entire ACC conference.
I am not saying your projections are going to be wrong. I am just saying that they are projections, which are nothing more than opinions, and no one really knows how the ACC is going to be in 10 years. But we do know how they have been the prior 10 and how the BIG has been, and over that span, the BIG has been better.

It is also a projection to say that Big Ten football will ever recover to be anything close to what pollsters told us it was in the 1920s and 1950s. As Big Ten teams then played almost nobody outside the midwest, we can't know how good they were compared to others. We just know that pollsters living in the midwest and northeast assured us they were. ND fans have been saying for more than a half century that the 2 reasons the Big Ten persuaded the Pac to close the Rose Bowl are that it wanted to keep all the money from the oldest and most profitable bowl and to prevent Big Ten champs from being exposed to losing bowls to champs of other conferences.

Maybe its just me, but I think SWC football was better during the Big Ten's glory days than Big Ten football was.

ND wants no part of the Big Ten because of what the league is and how it is run for what purposes. ND football people want no part of the Big Ten because we know how grossly overrated it has been since the rise of sportswriting as big business. It is no mistake that Michigan led calls for Big Ten teams to not play ND, so they would not get exposed.

Was Big Ten football better than ACC football in the 1990s? No. Has it been better so far this century? Yes, but not by much. Ohio State should not have won the 2001 BCS championship. The worst call in a BCS championship ever gave them the game.

Here is the key factor in evaluating the football situations of the 2 leagues so far this century. The Big Ten has been as weak as it has been with 1 of its 2 football alpha dogs (OSU) at its all time peak, while the ACC has been not much weaker while both its members with the most football history (FSU and Miami) have been at rock bottom at the same time. Reverse that scenario, have OSU be down at least as far as Michigan has been, with Michigan also down,. while FSU has had a run like its 14 years of Bowden's peak, and everyone in the country not a Big Ten fan would agree that ACC football is not merely much better but is much more exciting to watch.

And that does not include what ND as a half member will do for the national prestige of ACC football and resulting ease in recruiting, against both the SEC and Big Ten.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

You seem to feel that ND is joining the ACC in football. Not going to happen anytime soon. They value football independence more than anything and they also needed a lifeline to the bowls outside of the BCS. The ACC was the only conference willing to do this. 5 games was a heck of a concession for ND, but they were not negotiating from as powerful position as they were when they joined the Big East. If ND was negotiating that deal this year as opposed to last year, they would be in a more powerful position since they just played for the National Championship.
If Texas joins the ACC you talk about how great the competition is there. I see FSU and then who?? Clemson is a flaky team that really is the equivalent of Michigan State in the Big 10. They have had a couple decent years recently but look at the body of work over the last 30 years? Lets see what happens in 3-4 years to see if they are truly elite caliber.

Miami is on the rise, the question is can they sustain it without getting in more trouble with the NCAA. It seems to follow Miami every few years. However, even without that, So Florida was no longer the untapped market it was when Miami was the dominate program of the 80s. There are 8 FCS programs in Florida now compared to 3 back when Miami was competing back in the 80's/90's. In addition, Northern Schools, other ACC schools, SEC schools are heavily recruiting that market and are pulling talent away from Miami. After 2002, Maimi went in the tank, they had to reload and they couldn't, and that was before the taint of scandal hit. Can Miami have dominate teams again, yes, but will they dominate like they did in the 80/90s. No, that time has passed.

Va Tech - Equiv of Iowa out of the Big 10.

Ga Tech, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Cuse, Lou, Wake, Duke, BC?? Nice filler for the conference, not at al compelling, will never be a serious championship challenge.

So I see you passionately arguing for the ACC but again, all I hear is you argue potential, not what is actually happening.

The BIG may not be the SEC but I would take their teams compared to the ACC slate any day.

ND is joining ACC football. 5 games per year. What we are not doing is joining fully to be able to win the ACC. I think it ought to be obvious that even those 5 games a year will help elevate ACC recruiting and will add new TV viewers to ACC football.

The key is what that will do over time for a conference that is already #3 nationally in # of TV viewers for football, behind the SEC and Big Ten. The Big Ten rather clearly is afraid of the results. That fear is not just about ACC football becoming stronger. It's also that ND with the ACC's southeastern base will take a big step up in talent and leave the Big Ten (with the exception of OSU, I would guess) well behind.

Here is another huge scare of the Big Ten: Missouri in the SEC. MO has a long river border with IL, and IL produces more football talent than MN, IA, and WI combined. Over time, Missouri in the SEC will lead to even more IL players leaving the Big Ten.

As for what is actually happening, everybody today agrees ACC football is better than Big Ten football.

 

[joebobb]

You are right, all of what we are saying is projections so lets look at the facts.

Since 1993. What was the ACC football in the 1990's? FSU. Other than that there was no one. They never lost a conference game until 2001 I believe. They joined as an independent in 1992. So pretty much the ACC had no football presence beyond FSU who jumped into a weak conference. FSU won the Natl Championship in 1999. The ACC was not exciting to watch during that time because FSU did not play anyone. You knew they would destroy the rest of the conference so it was not worth watching. What created the parity was that FSU slipped to the rest of the conferences level instead of the bottom feeders rising up. Besides FSU in the 1990's was there a #2 program in the ACC?? No, Clemson was horrid, Ga Tech was nothing exciting, UNC had a good year or two (but still destroyed by FSU) until Mack Brown left for Texas. There was simply nothing in the ACC in the 1990's. Which is a shame because it would have been nice to see if FSU was as good as the hype or just playing in a weak conference.

In the BIG in the 90's. Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State and Purdue played in the Rose Bowl. Talk about parity. On top of that Mich won a NC then, Penn State should have shared a NC, Ohio State barely missed 2 titles during that time. I think on this alone, the BIG easily trumps the ACC during that period who did nothing outside of the carpetbagger FSU.

In the 2000's there were no ACC Nat Championships where the BIG had OSU in 2002. In addition, OSU played for the title in 2006-2007. There were 0 ACC schools that sniffed the NC game during that period.

So fast forward to today. Both conferences have an Alpha Dog (OSU FSU) This year the ACC has Clemson which has been strong and Miami has been better (although overrated). Michigan State and Wisconsin are strong in the BIG. I would argue that Clemson is stronger but that both MSU and WI are at Miami level. So while the ACC may be stronger than the BIG this year, again, the facts show that over the last 2 decades the BIG was much stronger than the ACC.

 

[joebobb]

Irish - Take a look at the latest strength of conference ratings on ESPN. While the BIG may not be the top of the list of the power conferences. Look who as usual is bringing up the rear. Yep the ACC ranks 5th of the top 5 power conferences. I know you like the potential of the ACC but history has proven time and time again why that conference from top to bottom is historically weak. Hell Duke is going to make the ACC championship game. Hardly must see TV.

I remember back in 2003 when the new ACC was announced how it would be a powerhouse like the SEC and surpass the SEC with its brands and names. Getting Miami, and VA Tech to compliment Clemson and FSU was a coup. Well 10 years later that prediction has proven to be a joke. Which again, why I preach that you don't make a decision based on potential on paper, you make it on the facts.

 

[BevoBlake]

If anything, I'd want to see this happen.

Kentucky loses their SEC Membership and joins the ACC alongside Louisville.

Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State all announce that they'll be leaving for the SEC.

Houston, Rice, SMU and New Mexico State join the Big XII.

 

[ATX89]

I'm ambivolent at this point. Anything would be better than the current Big12 so I kinda don't care as long as we move somewhere.

 

[ridik01]

Irish - Take a look at the latest strength of conference ratings on ESPN. While the BIG may not be the top of the list of the power conferences. Look who as usual is bringing up the rear. Yep the ACC ranks 5th of the top 5 power conferences. I know you like the potential of the ACC but history has proven time and time again why that conference from top to bottom is historically weak. Hell Duke is going to make the ACC championship game. Hardly must see TV.
I remember back in 2003 when the new ACC was announced how it would be a powerhouse like the SEC and surpass the SEC with its brands and names. Getting Miami, and VA Tech to compliment Clemson and FSU was a coup. Well 10 years later that prediction has proven to be a joke. Which again, why I preach that you don't make a decision based on potential on paper, you make it on the facts.

I don't take SOS from ESPN to heart. They're going to say the SEC is on top all the time.

 

[joebobb]

I have to agree about the ESPN rankings but it is not the fact that the SEC is on top. ESPN along with every other ranking has the ACC at the bottom of the power conferences. There is a reason why signing day is always their national championship. The ACC needs Texas for credibility much more than Texas needs them and joining the ACC would only bring down Texas football long term.

The BIG is a little more of a conference of equals (not saying it is the end all be all) but would not marginalize the Texas brand.