The baseball team swept Wake with a 12-7 win Sunday. Next up is the baseball Beanpot.
Here is what Rivals' hoops writers thought of our decision to replace Skinner with Donahue.
BC is still getting floated as a possible expansion team for the Big Ten. I just can't see any circumstance where they would turn to us. But it all comes down to money, so don't rule anything out.
Posts
13 comments:
My impression (but who knows, there is so much speculation out there) is that they care primarily about TV fees for the Big Ten Network - if that's the case, then BC is logical to be asked with a group of other northeast schools - Syracuse, Rutgers and a third I would hope is not named UConn - to try and compel cable companies to carry the network on basic through NE/NY/NJ, which could possibly double their viewer footprint. Each school has negatives - Rutgers that it has rarely been good and has massive budget problems, Syracuse b/c the football team is abysmal and us b/c of our bad travel rep.
My one worry is BC in the ACC, while the Big Ten has every other D1 school (but Buffalo and Temple) in the northeast.
Blist - that is why the ACC should jump to 16 teams first - before the Big Ten gets its chance.
They definitely should - I'd love to see Syracuse, Pitt & Rutgers for instance, in the ACC with us. Some other pre-emptive move - or fear of it - must be a reason why the B11 has gone from saying expansion is 18 months out to meeting yesterday about it.
12 teams is the perfect number in my opinion. We already have enough teams for the conference championship and adding more teams just dilutes the revenue pool. Unless you can add a big time program (ND or SEC school for example) which won't happen, I don't think it's worth adding mid-level programs like Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse etc.
Let's all pause and reflect on today, the greatest day in many students time at BC, MARATHON MONDAY!!!!
Agreed, happy Marathon Monday all. Wish I was day drinking as opposed to sitting in the office right now.
I have to agree w/ blist: Big 11 expansion is purely about expanding BTNetwork revenue (by gaining new, lucrative TV markets). All the talk of academic similarity, contiguous states, etc. is secondary.
Consequently, the BC, 'Cuse, Rutgers trio would bring the tristate area + Boston into the B10 fold, which would be invaluable to the B10, but only because their revenue stream is directly tied to the number of markets that carry the network, and thus pay fees.
The ACC is not structured as such (flat rate from pretermined TV deal). Obviously ACC expansion to 16 would help in our upcoming conference TV deal negotiations in a gross sense, but whether our per school yield would be greater, I think that's debatable. Because our TV compensation is structured differently, I don't think the ACC would enjoy the same net gain by adding teams as the B10 will enjoy.
I've never been entirely comfortable with BC's move to the ACC. No question it was better financially but BC is a fish out of water in the ACC for all the reasons that have been hashed out over the years. The Big Ten would be an equally bad fit for BC. The Big Ten is made up of huge state schools from the Midwest. Even Northwestern is a bad fit for many of the same reasons as BC and they're in Evanston, IL.
I don't know if I like the 16 team concept either, but if that's the wave of the future, the ACC should gather in the Northeast - and then they truly have a (Big) Atlantic Coast Conference.
Thed 16 team member possibilities were listed awhile back.
For what it's worth, seeing more and more message board/commenters floating BC as a possibility in a 16 team B10 since news broke of an abbreviated timeline for conference expansion decision.
A 16 team conference would do great TV if it put itself into four four-team divisions, used flex scheduling to have a semifinal round among the four division winners and then a championship game. that's the only way I get really jazzed about the possibility of such a large conference.
Supposedly, the Big11 commish will inform the affected leagues this week, so we should all know the names of the schools involved by week's end.
I don't understand the desire for 16 teams as it does not seem to make sense economically. Any school that we add would have to add more marginal revenue than we are currently getting per school for that to make sense. Otherwise, we would be losing money. For example, let's say the current ACC revenue is $10 per school. (Not sure, just using that as an example). So any new schools would have to add at least $10M in revenue each just to break even. What schools would those be? I guess one option is that by adding additional schools we would somehow get more revenue per school just by being bigger (through tv contracts, etc.). However, I just don't see that happening. TV networks aren't going to see us as marginally more valuable just because we add more schools to the ACC.
Wow, how I would love to drive 90 minutes down the road to see a BC game at Kinnick or a couple hours more to see BC versus Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin or Northwestern.
I doubt it will happen and I actually like BC in the ACC, but it would be nice to be able to see more BC games live.
If BC were to stay in the ACC after all the realignment, it could get screwed in the long run. If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, it's going to add Big 12 teams and Big East teams. The Big 12 is then going to have to pick off either Pac 10 schools (not going to happen), mid-majors (also not happening), or SEC teams ( likely to happen). The SEC in turn would raid the ACC (FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson) come to mind. Then the ACC wuold be stuck with garbage from what remains of the Big East. If 16 team super-conference are the wave of the future, the ACC and BC would even be worse off. The Big 10's expansion is going to start a chain reaction. If the ACC doesn't act to protect itself, it could see itself on the short end of the stick. That's why expanding to 16 teams would make a whole lot of sense now.
Post a Comment