macphisto

I would agree with this. We don't need our opinions to way heavily on this. If Magee can do it then I'm all for it, but I don't want him just because some former players like him. I think a lot of Bucs players liked Raheem Morris and that worked out well. Coaching is not a popularity contest. I'm biased against him not even because of him, but because he's got the stink of RichRod on him. But that doesn't mean he won't be entirely different. If he can give us a great offense while also giving us a great D and locking down recruits then sign me up. The prospect of someone caring as little about D as RichRod seems to does scare me, however, and the discipline issues worry me - but that's all related to Rod. I don't agree with your opinion but it is your opinion. I think anyone that is passionate about something or someone should let their voice be heard. I am simply saying Magee because I have researched the landscape and believe he is the best man for the job for multiple reasons. I also like Taggert never met the guy but I think he would do a good job because of his ties to the area. As a leader you take every voice into consideration then you make your decision of all the data and we are part of that data. I just want this University to be the best it can be. Bottom Line I'm on the same page with you. I don't know Magee personally or Taggart. If Maggee can take us to the next level and forward the program then I am all for him. I have my own reasons for not being thrilled with him at this point and most all of it has to do with RichRod and his association with him. That's not the most sane reason for not being a fan, but my dislike for Rodriguez is very high. That said, jvwvu thinks the guy deserves a shot and I certainly think he deserves a look. The prospect of getting a great coach who can recruit the area and is fiercely loyal to USF would be a huge plus. I do think he'd help the offense greatly, but the defense is a concern. Bring in Magee at HC and lure Shannon here as DC and you'd go a long way to convincing me. I want that 400-500 ypg offense, but I want it with a shutdown defense. But I will say that Taggart looks the most impressive of the non re-treads to me at the moment. I would not be depressed if Magee does get hired, but It think its important to separate any kind of emotional attachment to a guy too. A guy like Magee may be very appealing to Woulard and could ensure he comes here.

I would agree with this. We don't need our opinions to way heavily on this. If Magee can do it then I'm all for it, but I don't want him just because some former players like him. I think a lot of Bucs players liked Raheem Morris and that worked out well. Coaching is not a popularity contest. I'm biased against him not even because of him, but because he's got the stink of RichRod on him. But that doesn't mean he won't be entirely different. If he can give us a great offense while also giving us a great D and locking down recruits then sign me up. The prospect of someone caring as little about D as RichRod seems to does scare me, however, and the discipline issues worry me - but that's all related to Rod.

If you get a good guy then there's not much risk. Brian Kelly was a mid-major guy as was Butch Jones. Harbaugh coached at a FCS school before Stanford got him. There are negative examples too (Steve Kragthorpe, anyone?), but many of them relate the the inability to recruit and lead. Taggart does not appear to have an issue recruiting and he has been growing as a coach. I actually was impressed how decent WKU looked against Alabama. They lost by a wide margin and could not score, but that alone does not tell the tale.

I wouldn't call Michigan's offense under Rich Rod "prolific". And Rich Rod's defenses were pretty pathetic, as was Arizona's this year. If he's at all like Rich Rod then he won't be able to adapt to the players on the roster and will ignore the defense and discipline. Pitt's offense was better this year after he left and Sunseri became a better QB with Magee out of the picture. I understand wanting a guy people are familiar with, but that doesn't make him good head coach material - even USF ties don't do that. I'd personally rather have Taggart with his experience and time spent under the Harbaughs. michigan's offense was #8 total offense his last year. wvu #15 his last year. arizona #7 first year. maybe Magee learned defense from leavitt and offense from rich rod? i doubt he plays 3-3-5 stack like rich rod. I wanted him last time. even emailed woolard. I would not mind this hire at all. top 3 for me taggart, quinn, and magee. no particular order. for comparison's sake, holtz the offensive genius had 2 offenses rank in the top 60 in all his years here and at ecu(I bet it goes back further considering he was demoted at south carolina). they were #48 and #46. And yet they only went 7-6 with that fantastic offense that turned the ball over a lot. My mother went to Michigan and I grew up a fan - they are my #2 behind USF. Discipline was terrible on Rodriguez's teams. They had to score a ton of points just to stay in games because they couldn't stop the opponent. The offense the next year did not post the same kind of numbers under Brady Hoke, yet they won more games and got to a BCS bowl. Some do better than others, but a trademark of a Magee offense is sloppy play and plenty of turnovers. We have execution problems as it is. As I said, look at how much better Sunseri has been without Magee. I'll be honest, I really don't want someone from the RichRod family tree.

I wouldn't call Michigan's offense under Rich Rod "prolific". And Rich Rod's defenses were pretty pathetic, as was Arizona's this year. If he's at all like Rich Rod then he won't be able to adapt to the players on the roster and will ignore the defense and discipline. Pitt's offense was better this year after he left and Sunseri became a better QB with Magee out of the picture. I understand wanting a guy people are familiar with, but that doesn't make him good head coach material - even USF ties don't do that. I'd personally rather have Taggart with his experience and time spent under the Harbaughs.

I actually like this option a lot. Some risk, but high reward. I would love for him to bring in Shannon as the DC. We need to do better here in Florida with recruits.

Would be okay with Tommy or Terry. Tommy definitely did not live up to expectations at Clemson, who hired him to take them back to national prominence. I think he'd be more able here due to a greater recruiting stable in Florida.

That's why I ultimately don't think we'd get him. Plus we could get horribly hosed if he does mess up because the penalties for the team that hire him could be bad. I think Petrino is the best option of the re-treads. He's not too old (51) and has had good success in college. His first two years at Arkansas were rougher, but I think the cupboard was bare. I also think he could turn around our team quickly with the talent on the roster.

We can be a stepping stone or a place where someone can rebuild their reputation. Either one is not so bad as long as you do your due diligence with a replacement. Louisville did not do that when Petrino left while Cincy did. Though Butch Jones had a rough first year, he bounced back and is likely in line for a new position. The key is to be prepared for when the coach leaves so you don't drop off much. So Tressel, Petrino, and Nutt would all be proven commodities that can recruit and can coach, though they all have some baggage. Tressel is the best of that group, having won it all. As a native Ohioan (who hates Ohio State - my mom went to Michigan), I can tell you that Tressel is a heck of a salesman for a program. I also think he's not as damaged as he once was considering the Penn State scandal. We'd just have to be sure Tressel's staff is capable of coaching in his absence for the first five games and a bowl game. But I think it is too difficult to deal with Tressel until 2016, so I'd guess we'd go for Petrino or Nutt if we go with a veteran.

Not sure. If Virginia and GT both go B1G then I'd guess that will be the beginning. FSU and Clemson to the BXII. NC State and VT to the SEC. That would leave Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, UNC, Miami, and BC with ND for everything but football . The best bet for the ACC could be to dissolve at that point. Most depends on if the Big East remnants can do better on a TV contract. If so then I'd guess the ACC will dissolve and I could see the Big East essentially dissolving as well with a new conference being created. The problem is that the BE as is would be too big, but if the SEC and B1G go 16 then would the PAC and BXII be that far behind? So where would the BXII go after? Notre Dame would be an obvious choice if they're forced to join a conference and the ACC is dissolved. Cincy and Louisville would have promise, as would someone like BYU. The problem is that BYU should be a top target of the PAC. BYU, Boise St, Fresno, and SDSU could all be part of the PAC or they could go with Nevada and someone else (maybe a Wyoming?) to fill things out and avoid adding more Cali teams. Part of me thinks that this season validates NDs thinking that they don't need a conference for football. If Georgetown, Nova, etc for a strong basketball conference with teams like Xavier and Dayton, Marquette, etc then I could see them joining that. I think we don't get in any of the big conferences, but I also think five 16 team leagues will be the way it will be in the future anyways. The BE and ACC remnants end up merging and the BE basketball teams keep the name and end up with a great basketball conference.

Maybe they should wait until AFTER we play in the bowl game. Oh... wait a second. As much as I have been a fan of Holtz, this clearly has not worked out well. We're on the wrong path and I don't see how it's getting better. It seems we are underperforming against our talent. I'd be game to give Petrino a chance just to raise the strength of the program.

UConn mainly because it allows them to continue to be the Atlantic Coast Conference in actuality for the time being and they are a decent swap for Maryland, though not as strong academically as a school. They also make sense from a market perspective as they are close to NYC and can be seen as a bit of an "in" into that market. Louisville is attractive, but they are further away and not in an Atlantic state. I think they would be included in any next round of expansion. But will the Big XII go for them while they can since the door to Notre Dame appears closed?

If we can't get into the ACC or Big XII then the best choice is to construct a new 16 team league that can vie for that at-large conference spot in the new order. Boise State is a main part of the ingredient. BYU would be a preferred add as well. SDSU and Fresno would strengthen us out west. UNLV and Colorado State. SMU and Houston also out west. Maybe Air Force, but I'm not sure the service academies are great matches. USF, Cincinnati (assuming UConn and Louisville leave, though Louisville would be nice to keep), UCF, LaTech, Georgia State, Temple, UMass (market, market, market), and Memphis.

Will make the remaining teams fre and clear, likely without any penalties owed.

This is kind of true, but the point others have made is also true: the ACC will never corner the Cincy market and will never be a significant player in Ohio. USF would just increase the ACC's footprint in a state that is still growing. I think our biggest negative is that we have no stadium of our own. I really think any invite to the ACC would also have us agreeing to build an on-campus stadium within a decade, a reasonable timeframe. How would it expand a footprint they're already in? As of now the ACC has no presence in Ohio. They have presence in Florida, and a pretty solid one in Tampa. While people can saw they'll never win over Ohio, the same can be said of Florida with the Noles. Why add a team that gives you something you already have? At least Cincy gives you a new market. I'd love a ACC invite, I just don't think it is happening. Not without FSU moving elsewhere. It does, though a market in decline. USF further locks down Florida for the ACC, giving them three draws in the fourth largest state in the country. I tend to agree that FSU is most likely to try to block the move. If FSU decides to stay in the ACC then our best bet would be the Big XII if they expand since we would be a new market for them. UConn appears off to the ACC. I can see why they'd want Louisville, but I could see the Big XII taking a serious interest in Louisville too. The Big XII's top favorite must be FSU, but it's a question of if FSU wants to risk paying out a huge buyout or not. Then there's the question of the B1G. If UNC and UVA go B1G then things really get messy. If the B1G stays at 14 then things we play otu differently. My own opinion is that this scenario makes the most sense: The ACC becomes the first 16 team league by adding UConn, Temple, and Cincinnati. The Big XII gets back to 12 by adding Louisville and USF. The PAC-12 equals the B1G and becomes the PAC-14 by adding Boise State and BYU. The Big East ceases to exist as a football conference and maybe altogether. The ACC already has ND added and may add Georgetown and St. John's. Villanova would be another good non-football add for them to take them to 20 and make them the premiere basketball conference year to year. The ACC gets three new markets to replace the Baltimore/DC market they lost. They add Philly, Cincy, and suburban NYC in the form of UConn. They also get three historically good basketball programs. Louisville would be the real prize for the Big XII, but Louisville has pulled us with them before. We also represent a new market for the Big XII. Having teams like Texas, Oklahoma, OKST, etc come to visit for football will help build interest in the conference in the fourth largest state in the country (likely to be the 3rd largest state within the next few years, surpassing New York). That would give the Big XII a presence in Texas and Florida.

This is kind of true, but the point others have made is also true: the ACC will never corner the Cincy market and will never be a significant player in Ohio. USF would just increase the ACC's footprint in a state that is still growing. I think our biggest negative is that we have no stadium of our own. I really think any invite to the ACC would also have us agreeing to build an on-campus stadium within a decade, a reasonable timeframe.

Right now I would say Cincy looks better for the ACC. Better football program. Have had some good basketball teams. And the ACC already has a strong presence in Florida, though Cincy will never be all that strong of a draw in Kentucky or Ohio. The major hurdle for USF would be getting past FSU. I think Miami might actually go for us. There may be a stipulation on building a statement over a set timeframe. Getting to 16 makes sense for the ACC as there is the potential for further poaching. UConn and Louisville both add a lot for basketball while Louisville has improved greatly under Charlie Strong for football. If Cincy does not get picked up by the ACC, I could see them added to the Big XII to help them get to 12 teams and a championship game. Cincy and Boise St. would be strong adds with Boise required to upgrade facilities as part of the condition of joining.

Never see the courts for Maryland, it will settle but yeah a fight is coming. Remember the WVU / Big East iron clad statements. RU really the precedent has been set with Cuse and Pitt its 1 year so $10 mil buyout and another $5mil now so $15 mil and 1 more season in Big East if it lasts that long. The ACC came out with this outrageous amount to stop hemorrhaging teams. They don't want to be the Big East. I feel that they are going to stand fast on Maryland to try and dissuade other schools. If they reduce the amount to where its attractive to other schools to leave, it defeats the purpose. As for litigation, it would be easy for the ACC to point out that Maryland's exit at a reduced fee could spur an exodus that kills the conference. That is a real possibility They all might leave before this ever gets to litigation. FSU and Maryland both have a case since they voted against the rate increase. If FSU, Maryland, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia all leave, who is there left to really fight it? What if VT and NC State also leave? I think the likeliest scenario is that the B1G, SEC, Big XII, and PAC-12 expand. Whatever is left in the ACC and Big East merge under a new name with a new TV contract. It's a real shame. I liked it before all this conference musical chairs garbage. Ever since A&M bailed, it's become a mess.

So much here depends on how big everyone wants to get. The B1G going to 16 means that the SEC certainly will and the PAC-12 tends to follow the line of the B1G. The Big 12 will probably want to move to at least 12, if not beyond that. FSU and Clemson still would probably be the top options. Appears that three members of the ACC will go to the B1G if UVA and another go. Two probably to the SEC. Maybe two to the Big 12. That leaves just seven left in the ACC. I would think the PAC-12 would be interested in BYU and possibly Boise. Beyond that they could stick with Cali and go for San Diego State and Fresno or stretch out to grab Nevada. So would the Big 12 go to 16? I think it likely if all the others move. Beyond FSU and Clemson, I could see them taking an interest in Louisville, Cincinnati, and us then maybe Georgia Tech. If they don't, the ACC likely would to try to at least get back to 12. Temple would be a fit geographically. UConn would be obvious. UCF as well. They could really bet the farm with Florida by adding FAU and FIU as well or go in a different direction. Doesn't look good for the Big East, though I could see it surviving for one reason - the TV contract. Not because of what's negotiated, but because if the remnant of ACC schools feel they can do better they could merge with the shell of the Big East and sign a new deal, leaving the old deal defunct if the ACC is wound down.

I think CBS has the NS/Navy game when its not in South Bend. So this gives ESPN some consistent ND, but only when they play away against the ACC. This just upped our value, btw. Not because we lost ND, but because it was a shot across NBC's bow. NBC coming hard at the BE also means they will be trying to send a message to ESPN that they are going to be scrapping for any available contract. FSU didn't agree to the buyout. They voted against it. The buyout apparently goes into effect "today", but I expect that VT and FSU will exit very quickly while suing the conference to colluding against them leaving. That's what this is folks, a desperate conference and a desperate network in ESPN trying to keep it all from falling apart. Very soon the ACC will be the only conference that ESPN completely controls and the ACC knows that FSU, VT, Clemson, and others are looking for greener pastures. So they made a deal with ND to give them extra cash as an excuse to jack up the fee for exit to try to hold it all together. Without a massive increase in revenue (and it's not there), I expect FSU will look directly at the BXII, pay $20M to exit, and leave. The ACC will sue for more and ESPN's collusion will come out in any trial. This is a pre-emptive strike to try to prevent a mass exodus when the Big East gets paid much more than the ACC. Unless the conference falls apart before November 1, it will happen and the ACC will still collapse - especially when they have to fight so many lawsuits to try to get exit fees.

Ratings last year were down about 10% too. It could just be that the country is becoming less interested in football and more interested in other activities. There's not just a monetary investment, there's a time investment. Three hours plus is a lot of time to spend on something week after week. My guess is that people are becoming more selective about which games they watch and when, even on TV. Marquee games will draw a crowd, but I think there are fewer people that will sit and watch every game on TV or even every game their team plays in. That creates a viewership and attendance decline.

NBC has other places to put games. Since Comcast is the majority stakeholder, they are looking to use NBC to help expand their version of Fox Sports Net, Comcast SportsNet - that's becoming part of NBC Sports. They also may do what they did with the Olympics and put games on places like CNBC or elsewhere. But it largely depends if the contract splits rights or not. NBC could actually partner with someone else for a contract. They wouldn't do it with any of their network competition, but with Turner being interested as well I could see Turner Networks partnering with NBC on a deal. From a Big East standpoint, this makes sense. Another aspect to remember for NBC is the fact that we will have west coast teams and my guess is the 14th team will be in the west. In fact, I'd be inclined to move to 16 teams for football and add two more western teams. This will allow NBC to to schedule Eastern centric primetime programming and Western centric primetime programming to maximize viewership and maximize our money. The three additional teams I'd add would be BYU, Fresno State, and Air Force. In addition, if I were presenting to these potential members and to NBC/Turner/whoever, I would hype up the prospect of a 16 team league and a new format beyond a simple championship game. You move to four regional divisions, just the the AFC or NFC in the NFL. You play all three members in your divison every year and at least one member of each other division each year. And then comes the big revenue generator that you need to get the NCAA to approve - a six team conference playoff where the four division winners and two wildcards vie for the conference title and a chance at our top bowl and, maybe, the national title. My feeling is that conferences being able to institute playoffs inside their ranks is the way to get a real playoff. Imagine four big 16 team conferences with six team playoffs - massive revenue generators. The four conference winners each emerge to play for the final title. It even fits into the upcoming four team system that will replace the BCS.

Love it. He seems to really know about the BE assets. He's great at making a sales pitch for the conference. I really like the choice as commish.

If ESPN comes to us and says they want an exclusive deal then I tell them that they better willing to bend over, especially since they basically already did that to our conference. ESPN wants exclusive rights then bidding starts at $21M per school, per year for all sports.

you need to work on your math. a champ game is not worth $48M ($4M per team). In 2010 the SEC champ game generated $14.5M . Just over $1M per team. big 12 title game is not worth $34M more than SECs. Sorry but adding FSU and clemson won't bring an additional $2-$4M per school either. That would mean ESPN is willing to essentially pay $64M - $88M for them to join. they are essentially adding 2 schools for $32M - $44M per. not happening. Exactly. Chances are they might be willing to pay an extra $40M a year to get both schools - meaning that they end up with the same $20M that the current members get. It would add multiple games to the deal to go along with that. I highly doubt that WVU will get $6M per year for Tier 3. I could see them squeezing $1M a year in multiple markets - and that'll basically go back to the BXII with the grant of rights. The big money comes from the national TV deal unless you're a massive name. Alabama can pull big money on third tier. So can Michigan. West Virginia? Not so much. Pittsburgh is a decent sized market, but it's not massive.