U. of Miami = Toast

[Donoghus]

What about this potential scenario?

SEC expands to 16 teams taking Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St, and Clemson.  (One report had thrown this out there).

Then Miami is given the death penalty by the NCAA.

Where does this leave ACC football?  9 teams and severely beaten.  Does it survive? Or do the remaining teams go out and try to save their skin by whatever means necessary?

Far-fetched but figured I'd throw it out there.

College football is bigger than the ACC.  Nobody on the planet with say "Oh my God! The ACC! What ever will they doooooo! Call Scooby Doo!"    The ACC hasn't won a championship in a decade. They're a step above the MAC in importance.

Well eja, your ignorance certainly shows.  There are people who actually have a vested interest in ACC football.  I don't think I was putting them on a pedestal here or anything. Saying that they were above college football. (But thanks for putting words in my mouth).

Simply throwing out a potential scenario.  If you do yourself a little history lesson, you'll find that the SMU death penalty help exacerbate the fall of the Southwest Conference. I was asking could it happen again.

Rather than take a shot at it and be dismissive, either consider it or ignore it.

And the fall of the Southwest Conference mattered how?

I guess it mattered to the commissioner of the Southwest Conference, but it didn't matter to football fans, which I'm kinda starting to think you aren't.

All these schools will still play football. You were the one that came up with multiple multiple realignment scenarios, and specifically stated it would kill the Big 12, as though it's just a matter of fact, and I don't recall that being a problem for anyone.

Why is the ACC any different?  Oh. I know. Because eja made a common sense comment about it. duh.

Nobody said "Dons said the ACC is bigger than college football. "  I said that.

And yes. People have a vested interest in the ACC. The ACC commissioner and people that made tv contracts. But not college football fans. And you didn't say that. I did. 

I brought it up because its actually, you know, a part of college football history.  And the whole "death penalty" ruling from the NCAA does have a precedent from what happened with SMU. People have been throwing around the idea of the "death penalty" in regards to what's going on at Miami right now.  

I state my opinion that the Big 12 won't exist in a decade and you're calling me out on expressing my opinion on that because its a bad thing?  Huh? This is a message board.

Questioning my college football manhood?  C'mon, eja.  Grasping at straws here.  I don't even really need to point out how the questioning one's fanhood flies on this board.  I won't even address the fanhood question.

I specifically pointed out the ACC for two reasons;  

a) Because there had been a recent Foxsports report on the possibility of Florida State & Clemson (ACC schools) jumping ship and going to the SEC.  

b) Because I'm a BC grad and they happen to play in the ACC.

[Eja117]

What about this potential scenario?

SEC expands to 16 teams taking Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St, and Clemson.  (One report had thrown this out there).

Then Miami is given the death penalty by the NCAA.

Where does this leave ACC football?  9 teams and severely beaten.  Does it survive? Or do the remaining teams go out and try to save their skin by whatever means necessary?

Far-fetched but figured I'd throw it out there.

College football is bigger than the ACC.  Nobody on the planet with say "Oh my God! The ACC! What ever will they doooooo! Call Scooby Doo!"    The ACC hasn't won a championship in a decade. They're a step above the MAC in importance.

Well eja, your ignorance certainly shows.  There are people who actually have a vested interest in ACC football.  I don't think I was putting them on a pedestal here or anything. Saying that they were above college football. (But thanks for putting words in my mouth).

Simply throwing out a potential scenario.  If you do yourself a little history lesson, you'll find that the SMU death penalty help exacerbate the fall of the Southwest Conference. I was asking could it happen again.

Rather than take a shot at it and be dismissive, either consider it or ignore it.

The Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 are the only conferences that truly matter, which is why teams from the Big 12, ACC, and Big East would all jump at the chance if offered admission to any of those conferences.  The ACC, Big East, and Big 12 remnants would all just form 2 better conferences, one of which would include Miami (after its year is up).  

The fall of the Southwest Conference had very little to do with SMU, it was much more a result of it just being to geographically similar and not being able to gain enough television dollars to compete.  That is why Arkansas bolted in 1992 to the SEC.  And why Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor joined the Big 8 to form the Big 12.  Sure SMU may have replaced Baylor or Tech had it not collapsed, but the Southwest Conference was doomed to fail in the massively expanding television age because it was entirely one state and one state only after Arkansas was gone.  It just couldn't get the television dollars it needed to survive.  

I largely agree with this.  This isn't maybe the way everyone wants college football to be. It's just how it is.

[Donoghus]

What about this potential scenario?

SEC expands to 16 teams taking Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St, and Clemson.  (One report had thrown this out there).

Then Miami is given the death penalty by the NCAA.

Where does this leave ACC football?  9 teams and severely beaten.  Does it survive? Or do the remaining teams go out and try to save their skin by whatever means necessary?

Far-fetched but figured I'd throw it out there.

College football is bigger than the ACC.  Nobody on the planet with say "Oh my God! The ACC! What ever will they doooooo! Call Scooby Doo!"    The ACC hasn't won a championship in a decade. They're a step above the MAC in importance.

Well eja, your ignorance certainly shows.  There are people who actually have a vested interest in ACC football.  I don't think I was putting them on a pedestal here or anything. Saying that they were above college football. (But thanks for putting words in my mouth).

Simply throwing out a potential scenario.  If you do yourself a little history lesson, you'll find that the SMU death penalty help exacerbate the fall of the Southwest Conference. I was asking could it happen again.

Rather than take a shot at it and be dismissive, either consider it or ignore it.

The Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 are the only conferences that truly matter, which is why teams from the Big 12, ACC, and Big East would all jump at the chance if offered admission to any of those conferences.   The ACC, Big East, and Big 12 remnants would all just form 2 better conferences, one of which would include Miami (after its year is up).  

The fall of the Southwest Conference had very little to do with SMU, it was much more a result of it just being to geographically similar and not being able to gain enough television dollars to compete.  That is why Arkansas bolted in 1992 to the SEC.  And why Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor joined the Big 8 to form the Big 12.  Sure SMU may have replaced Baylor or Tech had it not collapsed, but the Southwest Conference was doomed to fail in the massively expanding television age because it was entirely one state and one state only after Arkansas was gone.  It just couldn't get the television dollars it needed to survive.  

I do think there is some merit to this.  We do seem to be headed towards the age of "superconferences".  I wouldn't be shocked to see some sort of ACC/Big East superconference to join the PAC-12, Big Ten, SEC triumverante.  

In regards to the SWC, I'm certainly not saying that the demise of SMU led to the destruction of the SWC.  It was just one of several pieces that seem to speed up the disolution of that conference.  

I'm just throwing out a scenario here.  

[Moranis]

just to add some perspective on what the worst NCAA football penalty has been to date:

"...Southern Mehodist University  receiving the “death penalty.” SMU’s 1987 season was cancelled and it was allowed no home games in 1988 (the season was subsequently also cancelled). The NCAA committee declared that the penalty was given in order to “eliminate a program that was built on a legacy of wrongdoing, deceit and rule violations."

The punishment effectively destroyed SMU’s football program, which has gone 66-169-3 after thel team was brought back in 1989. The death penalty didn’t just severely damage football at SMU, it was also one of the major factors that led to the dissolution of the Southwest Conference in 1996."
http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/infamous_ncaa_sanctions/smu_football.html

it took around a decade of misbehavior to the NCAA to do this to SMU. but since then, the NCAA has tightened up its rules and doled out more penalties than in the past.

Which is why I don't think the NCAA will dish out the "death peanlty" again. It obliterated SMU football and the ramifications were felt throughout the old Southwest Conference.

SMU was a crap program, cheated and became good, and was a crap program after it was forced to stop cheating.  The reality is, SMU was only ever good because of the booster gifts.  One could argue that Miami is exactly the same as SMU in that regard.

I think you missed the point, here.  I wasn't judging the success or lack of success for the SMU program throughout the years (although I think Doak Walker might disagree if he was here).

The point was that the punishment rendered led to some devastating consequences and more than SMU football was affected by it.  This is why I think the NCAA has been reluctant to issue the death penalty since then (it hasn't) and why I think the death penalty won't be used here.

Far from it from being considered a rich, rich football history but SMU produced some solid players over the years well before the controversies surrounding the teams of the late 70s and early 80s with Dickerson & James;  Walker, Don Meredith, Forrest Gregg, and Raymond Berry all come to mind.  So calling it a "crap program" is a little disingenous in my mind.

SMU had 3 winning seasons in the 60's and 3 more in the 70's.  It hadn't even earned a share of the conference title since 1948.  That is a crap program.  Sure it produced some great players, but Doak Walker played in the 40's.  You know who else was good in the 40's, Army, and I don't think anyone wouldn't call Army a crap football program.  Heck Marquette had a football team in the 40's.  SMU was a crap program, it cheated and won a bunch of games, was put on probation and continued to cheat before the NCAA said enough is enough and stopped the cheating.  SMU returned to its rightful place as a crap program when it came back.

This seems to be the same thing that is Miami.  Cheat win titles, get put on probation, be average for awhile, bring in new coach, cheat again, win a bunch more, get put on probation, be average for awhile, cheat again, etc.  It is time for the NCAA to say enough is enough and put the hammer down on Miami.

[Eja117]

What about this potential scenario?

SEC expands to 16 teams taking Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St, and Clemson.  (One report had thrown this out there).

Then Miami is given the death penalty by the NCAA.

Where does this leave ACC football?  9 teams and severely beaten.  Does it survive? Or do the remaining teams go out and try to save their skin by whatever means necessary?

Far-fetched but figured I'd throw it out there.

College football is bigger than the ACC.  Nobody on the planet with say "Oh my God! The ACC! What ever will they doooooo! Call Scooby Doo!"    The ACC hasn't won a championship in a decade. They're a step above the MAC in importance.

Well eja, your ignorance certainly shows.  There are people who actually have a vested interest in ACC football.  I don't think I was putting them on a pedestal here or anything. Saying that they were above college football. (But thanks for putting words in my mouth).

Simply throwing out a potential scenario.  If you do yourself a little history lesson, you'll find that the SMU death penalty help exacerbate the fall of the Southwest Conference. I was asking could it happen again.

Rather than take a shot at it and be dismissive, either consider it or ignore it.

And the fall of the Southwest Conference mattered how?

I guess it mattered to the commissioner of the Southwest Conference, but it didn't matter to football fans, which I'm kinda starting to think you aren't.

All these schools will still play football. You were the one that came up with multiple multiple realignment scenarios, and specifically stated it would kill the Big 12, as though it's just a matter of fact, and I don't recall that being a problem for anyone.

Why is the ACC any different?  Oh. I know. Because eja made a common sense comment about it. duh.

Nobody said "Dons said the ACC is bigger than college football. "  I said that.

And yes. People have a vested interest in the ACC. The ACC commissioner and people that made tv contracts. But not college football fans. And you didn't say that. I did. 

I brought it up because its actually, you know, a part of college football history.  And the whole "death penalty" ruling from the NCAA does have a precedent from what happened with SMU. People have been throwing around the idea of the "death penalty" in regards to what's going on at Miami right now.  

I state my opinion that the Big 12 won't exist in a decade and you're calling me out on expressing my opinion on that because its a bad thing?  Huh? This is a message board.

Questioning my college football manhood?  C'mon, eja.  Grasping at straws here.  I don't even really need to point out how the questioning one's fanhood flies on this board.  I won't even address the fanhood question.

I specifically pointed out the ACC for two reasons;  

a) Because there had been a recent Foxsports report on the possibility of Florida State & Clemson (ACC schools) jumping ship and going to the SEC.  

b) Because I'm a BC grad and they happen to play in the ACC.

I'm aware you're a BC grad. I have some BC connections myself and I like BC.  I realize BC plays in the ACC.

I am aware this has to do with football history.  I think it has a little more to do with football future.

Everything you said about realignment and whatnot made perfect sense and was all accurate. You spelled out multiple scenarios for ending conferences and building others, all of which had normal pros and cons.

Then I added a take on the end of the ACC, which was accurate, and you broke your own rules to call me ignorant, when I never mentioned you.

My comments are clearly aimed at the unimportance of the ACC (comparatively and in the grand scheme of college football) and not at a person.

I don't want to engage in this kind of revisionism.  Just apologize and say you misunderstood and I'm fine with that Dons. You made a mistake. No big deal.  

Perhaps I didn't realize how much a football conference means to you.  If I missed all your previous comments about how happy you are that BC is in the ACC as opposed to the Big East or something, then shame on me, because you're a very involved college football poster, and I love college football.  But that doesn't change the ACC being somewhat less important than other conferences, especially considering the Miami situation.  Wherever BC goes it will be a BCS school, so I'm not sure why the ACC is so important or why it would rattle anyone to say the end of the ACC wouldn't matter, but if a person just loves the ACC as a conference then fine.  The ACC is far more important as a basketball conference, which is something I didn't think of at the time.

[indeedproceed]

Eja, I think there is more than enough blame to go around here if we  want to start pointing fingers.

Dons asked a question, which you mocked while you answered. If that was a misunderstanding on his part, he wasn't alone, and that might imply that it was actually a miscommunication from your end while initially answering the question.

He could've done without the 'your ignorance clearly shows' comment in reply, and you could've done without questioning his football fanhood.

If we wanna take this to the tribunal and figure out who owes who what blood money that's fine, but honestly its early and I think its better just to move on, if we can do that without further inciting snarkiness.

[Moranis]

What about this potential scenario?

SEC expands to 16 teams taking Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St, and Clemson.  (One report had thrown this out there).

Then Miami is given the death penalty by the NCAA.

Where does this leave ACC football?  9 teams and severely beaten.  Does it survive? Or do the remaining teams go out and try to save their skin by whatever means necessary?

Far-fetched but figured I'd throw it out there.

College football is bigger than the ACC.  Nobody on the planet with say "Oh my God! The ACC! What ever will they doooooo! Call Scooby Doo!"    The ACC hasn't won a championship in a decade. They're a step above the MAC in importance.

Well eja, your ignorance certainly shows.  There are people who actually have a vested interest in ACC football.  I don't think I was putting them on a pedestal here or anything. Saying that they were above college football. (But thanks for putting words in my mouth).

Simply throwing out a potential scenario.  If you do yourself a little history lesson, you'll find that the SMU death penalty help exacerbate the fall of the Southwest Conference. I was asking could it happen again.

Rather than take a shot at it and be dismissive, either consider it or ignore it.

The Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 are the only conferences that truly matter, which is why teams from the Big 12, ACC, and Big East would all jump at the chance if offered admission to any of those conferences.   The ACC, Big East, and Big 12 remnants would all just form 2 better conferences, one of which would include Miami (after its year is up).  

The fall of the Southwest Conference had very little to do with SMU, it was much more a result of it just being to geographically similar and not being able to gain enough television dollars to compete.  That is why Arkansas bolted in 1992 to the SEC.  And why Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor joined the Big 8 to form the Big 12.  Sure SMU may have replaced Baylor or Tech had it not collapsed, but the Southwest Conference was doomed to fail in the massively expanding television age because it was entirely one state and one state only after Arkansas was gone.  It just couldn't get the television dollars it needed to survive.  

I do think there is some merit to this.  We do seem to be headed towards the age of "superconferences".  I wouldn't be shocked to see some sort of ACC/Big East superconference to join the PAC-12, Big Ten, SEC triumverante.  

In regards to the SWC, I'm certainly not saying that the demise of SMU led to the destruction of the SWC.  It was just one of several pieces that seem to speed up the disolution of that conference.  

I'm just throwing out a scenario here.  

I firmly believe that there will be future college expansion (based on football) and that the only 3 conferences that will keep all of their current members are the Big Ten, Pac 12, and SEC.  Everyone else is going to lose membership when it happens.  If giving Miami the death penalty speeds that up, then so be it.  If giving Miami the death penalty leads Maryland and North Carolina to leave the ACC for the Big Ten when they might have otherwise stayed, then so be it (after Notre Dame, Maryland and UNC are the two schools the Big Ten covets the most).  That shouldn't concern the NCAA at all, it should only look at the conduct and what punishment is deserved based on the conduct and not try to predict the future. 

What makes this thing so interesting is the NCAA head who was so hard on USC and wanted to make an example of USC, happens to be the former U. of Miami athletic director during pretty much this entire period.  He sort of has to put the hammer down on himself.

[Roy H.]

The big question for me, when talking about the ACC, is whether they would try to hold on as a basketball only conference (or a non-football conference, I guess), while allowing their member schools to pursue football in other conferences.  Would schools even be allowed to do this, under current rules?  (I know Notre Dame can be independent in football while in the Big East for basketball; could teams be in two separate conferences, though?)

I'd have no problem with the ACC folding as a football conference, but losing ACC basketball would be unfortunate.  

[Fafnir]

The big question for me, when talking about the ACC, is whether they would try to hold on as a basketball only conference, while allowing their member schools to pursue football in only conferences.  Would schools even be allowed to do this, under current rules?  (I know Notre Dame can be independent in football while in the Big East for basketball; could teams be in two separate conferences, though?)

I'd have no problem with the ACC folding as a football conference, but losing ACC basketball would be unfortunate. 

They do it for hockey I know, not sure if it'd be legal under the current rules for football.

I doubt they'd do that (the expanding conferences) though UNC/Maryland are attractive to the Big 10 for their regions and their overall athletics, not football.

[Moranis]

The big question for me, when talking about the ACC, is whether they would try to hold on as a basketball only conference (or a non-football conference, I guess), while allowing their member schools to pursue football in other conferences.  Would schools even be allowed to do this, under current rules?  (I know Notre Dame can be independent in football while in the Big East for basketball; could teams be in two separate conferences, though?)

I'd have no problem with the ACC folding as a football conference, but losing ACC basketball would be unfortunate.  

Yes teams can be in two separate conferences.  Temple, for example, is in MAC for football and the Atlantic 10 for everything else.  Now granted the Atlantic 10 doesn't have football, but it could be in the MAC for everything.

BYU is pulling a Notre Dame by going independent in football and is the WCC for everything else.  

That said I don't believe it makes sense for any major school to split its conference affliation between two conferences.  

I think realistically something like this will happen in the next 10 years.

SEC - 12 + Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida State, Virginia Tech
Pac 12 - 12 + Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech
Big 10 - 12 + Notre Dame, Connecticut, Syracuse, Maryland
ACC - remaining 9 + Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, W. Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers, Memphis
Big 16 - Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Baylor, Texas Christian, Houston, C. Florida, S. Florida, S. Mississippi, E. Carolina, Boise St., Brigham Young, Fresno St., San Diego St., Nevada, UNLV

The WAC, Sun Belt, and rest of the Mountain West, all just make do the best they can.


Doing this I'd actually envision 4 divisions within each conference.  Let's take the SEC

West
A&M
Missouri
LSU
Arkansas

Mid-West
Alabama
Auburn
Miss.
Miss. St.

South-East
Florida
Florida St.
Georgia
S. Carolina

North-East
Virginia Tech
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Every year you would play your division.  You would play one other division in full for 2 years and then rotate that division (which becomes half of the conference for the title game).  And every year you would play 2 other teams.  I would personally do it like the NFL so if you finished in first you would play the first place team from the two divisions you don't play the next year (you could do it in two year cycles for better scheduling).

So say the West and Midwest are matched up the winner of those 2 divisions would play the winner of the Southeast and Northeast in the SEC title game.  Say LSU finished the last 2 years at 16-2 in conference and had the best record in the West and Alabama was 15-3 and had the best record in the Midwest.  They would each play Florida 14-4 and Virginia Tech 15-3, the first place teams from the other divisions over the next two years.  The respective second place teams would play each other, etc.

[Donoghus]

It'll never happen but I'd love to see BC as an independent in football and ACC in basketball.

If the football portion of the ACC went away, it really wouldn't bug me too much.

[Chris]

It'll never happen but I'd love to see BC as an independent in football and ACC in basketball.

If the football portion of the ACC went away, it really wouldn't bug me too much.

Why would you want them to be independent?  I know it works for Notre Dame, but I think they are the exception, and live off their history. 

I don't think BC has the appeal to bring in anywhere near the kind of revenue as an independent, which would put a strain on the program. 

Not to mention the way the BCS is set up to reward major conferences, and punish those who are not part of the "club".  BC does not have the fanbase to override that, and they could just slip (even more) into relative obscurity.

[Rondo2287]

It'll never happen but I'd love to see BC as an independent in football and ACC in basketball.

If the football portion of the ACC went away, it really wouldn't bug me too much.

Why would you want them to be independent?  I know it works for Notre Dame, but I think they are the exception, and live off their history. 

I don't think BC has the appeal to bring in anywhere near the kind of revenue as an independent, which would put a strain on the program. 

Not to mention the way the BCS is set up to reward major conferences, and punish those who are not part of the "club".  BC does not have the fanbase to override that, and they could just slip (even more) into relative obscurity.

Ya, I wouldnt want them to be independent.  Not sure i would want them to go back to the big east either.  That conference is a bit of a joke, both football wise and academically.  Big 10 wouldnt be bad, but there isnt anything in it for the big 10

[Donoghus]

It'll never happen but I'd love to see BC as an independent in football and ACC in basketball.

If the football portion of the ACC went away, it really wouldn't bug me too much.

Why would you want them to be independent?  I know it works for Notre Dame, but I think they are the exception, and live off their history. 

I don't think BC has the appeal to bring in anywhere near the kind of revenue as an independent, which would put a strain on the program. 

Not to mention the way the BCS is set up to reward major conferences, and punish those who are not part of the "club".  BC does not have the fanbase to override that, and they could just slip (even more) into relative obscurity.

Oh, I know they don't have the appeal whatsoever to be an independent these days.  Like I said, it would never happen. Just a dream.

BC was an independent in football 'til 1991.  When I was a kid, I remember going to BC games against teams from all over the country rather than the same conference teams over and over with maybe one quality non-conference team thrown in. 

I like the idea of playing whoever. 

It'll never happen.

[Chris]

It'll never happen but I'd love to see BC as an independent in football and ACC in basketball.

If the football portion of the ACC went away, it really wouldn't bug me too much.

Why would you want them to be independent?  I know it works for Notre Dame, but I think they are the exception, and live off their history. 

I don't think BC has the appeal to bring in anywhere near the kind of revenue as an independent, which would put a strain on the program. 

Not to mention the way the BCS is set up to reward major conferences, and punish those who are not part of the "club".  BC does not have the fanbase to override that, and they could just slip (even more) into relative obscurity.

Oh, I know they don't have the appeal whatsoever to be an independent these days.  Like I said, it would never happen. Just a dream.

BC was an independent in football 'til 1991.  When I was a kid, I remember going to BC games against teams from all over the country rather than the same conference teams over and over with maybe one quality non-conference team thrown in. 

I like the idea of playing whoever. 

It'll never happen.

I understand that.  I hate the conference system anyways.  Particularly with the way the talent has started to spread out a bit more over the last few years, I think the conferences are hurting college football as a whole.