Quo Vadis

PSU wasn't prepared for Holman. We'll see what he can really do in the coming weeks. For now, I'll just happily savor UCF's defeat.

WOO HOO !!!!! Thanks Penn State !!!!

IMO, it SUCKS for us every time UCF does something noteworthy, and beating Penn State in Ireland would be just that. So I am hoping against hope PSU stops them!

CRAP ... UCF is going to win 24-23. Penn State should have had this iced a long time ago. Some bad refereeing and stupid red zone playcalling has set UCF up for a last-second win.

Come on Penn State !!!

This was UTSA's first game as FBS, and the first game in Houston's new stadium. What an abortion.

Not me. Most Houston fans i encounter talk a big game but this is a humiliating defeat and i feel good about it, lol.

Why would the B10 want USF? Why would the Big 12 wants USF? Unfortunately USF brings nothing to the table besides a very tiny recruiting pipeline. If USF had the fanbase of FSU, they'd possibly stand a chance. USF ranks higher then most of the Big12 bottom dwellers in average attendance, enrolled students, and TV market categories. Also the Big12 is stating that they want into the Florida market... since UF, FSU, and Miami are all off of the market, its safe to assume that they are either hinting about adding us or they might considering adding USF and UCF as a combo deal. If they were to add USF and UCF then the Big12 would be back to full strength again. Lets face reality here... its about 2AM and we are the last semi-attractive girl left at the bar and the Big12 is desperate... we got this in the bag. Why would they want to bring in another bottom dweller then? I'm also sure they're not looking at tickets distributed either when they look at that. When you look at actual tickets redeemed, then we probably fall right in line with their bottom dwellers....if that. Do you think anyone in the B12 had an actual attendance of 18k at a game in recent years? Certainly not. B12 is getting into Florida with bowl games. That's provides them with probably more exposure than by taking UCF or USF. Hate to admit it, but I don't think the Big 12 is "desperate" to add Florida teams. They do want to add a Florida bowl or two, and the Russell Athletic Bowl - specifically the AAC's spot in it - is ripe for the plucking. As for us and UCF, as of right now we don't bring anywhere near the $20 million (each) in value-added needed to justify adding us.

No BatonRouge, that was according to ONE network who owns COMCAST which provides cable in the areas of...oh would you look at that...all the schools you listed above. It was two networks - first NBC, and then also ESPN. And obviously, these deals are national, they aren't local. It's not like NBC and ESPN were signing a deal for the Houston and Philly markets alone, such that U of H and Temple would hold special value for them. No, we can sugar-coat it all we want if we like, but the bald fact of the matter is that we are, at best, the 5th most valuable media property in the AAC. We're a Group B school in a Group B (not-AQ) conference. That's where we are as of now, it's up to us to build ourselves up.

Our attendance has been a massively inflated number the last two years. Unless the Big 12 starts a network, or Fox/ESPN offer more money to add USF, TV market is relative. For bowl games. There has been no direct proof that the Big 12 is out to just add any presence in the state. Yeah. That's what they need... We're one of the most attractive pieces left, but lets not ignore BYU, UConn, Cincy, and Boise State. I just don't believe the Big 12 is really ready to expand. If you believe the rumors, They were willing to wait months for FSU... Our attendance has been a massively inflated number the last two years. Unless the Big 12 starts a network, or Fox/ESPN offer more money to add USF, TV market is relative. For bowl games. There has been no direct proof that the Big 12 is out to just add any presence in the state. Yeah. That's what they need... We're one of the most attractive pieces left, but lets not ignore BYU, UConn, Cincy, and Boise State. I just don't believe the Big 12 is really ready to expand. If you believe the rumors, They were willing to wait months for FSU... According to the networks, we are less attractive than Houston, Temple, UConn, and Cincy. I just don't see the Big 12 having any interest in us. There is no evidence that any P5 thinks we are worth the incremental $20 million more per year we would need to be to justify splitting the pie more ways. I do not expect the Big 12 to expand at all, the money just doesn't add up for it.

I agree that in the short run, since we've been given lemons, we have to make the best of it and make lemonade. But this is going to be difficult because with the loss of the higher-profile Big East teams, our football schedule just isn't very appealing, and that drives ticket sales, concessions, merch sales, etc. In an ideal world, all of us Bulls supporters would open our wallets the same no matter who we play, but the reality is it just isn't so.

Wish I was as optimistic as you are, but IMO this ACC GOR makes it significantly less likely that we will advance to a P5 conference any time soon. Our best bet to join a P5 was as an ACC back-fill after they were raided again by the B1G, SEC, or Big 12. That's the way we got the Big East invite in 2004, after the Miami/VT raid. But with this GOR, that raid will not be forthcoming, meaning that for us to join a P5 it will have to because a P5 actually WANTS us, as opposed to NEEDS us to make up for losses incurred in a raid. And I don't think it likely at all that any P5 will want us. If they did, they already would have taken us.

Well, I bet Tulane has to pay rent to the Saints to play in the Superdome? Over the years, the state of Louisiana has cut all kinds of sweetheart deals with owner Tom Benson to keep him happy and obviate the threat of moving to San Antonio, etc. He basically owns the Dome's revenue streams plus gets a subsidy from the state if certain profitability targets aren't met. Essentially it's a state gauranteed floor on his revenue. In any event, I think Tulane's situation is instructive for USF, as both are universities playing in cities dominated by an NFL franchise and playing in their stadium. On one hand, USF's situation isn't as bad because we draw 25,000 - 60,000 depending on who is playing, whereas Tulane's football attendance in the Dome has typically been less than 10,000 in recent years, a horrible experience for fans. Nevertheless, in the long run, I believe we should move in Tulane's direction and build our own football stadium. Having an on-campus stadium creates a far more spirited environment for the team and school.

Shirley you must be joking .... Nope, not joking... Plenty of organizations have sued other organizations for infringing upon their acronym. The most well known instance was the big decade long legal battle over the acronym WWF. If the REAL AAC gets pissed enough or figures out that they could get a few million in free money from the new AAC, then they will sue. Sounds like they've expressed their minor ire at having to share AAC, are happy with the 5 seconds of media coverage it got them, and have moved on. Probably because it would be extremely difficult for the "Appalachian" to show any damages worth an attorney's time, and because the "American" is a pretty dry turnip to try and squeeze money out of anyway. Dry turnip? There's upwards of $100m in the kitty right now. We're hoping to get about $30 of it ourselves, and the new schools are pushing hard to get more than the token $1m each we've offered... That's legacy money from the old Big East. Hard to see how any of that would be at stake in an AAC lawsuit.

Louisville has done basically nothing in football. A few really good seasons here and there, but for most of their football existence they've been an afterthought in crappy conferences. Most of the league's teams blow Louisville out of the water in terms of football success, and those that don't - specifically, Duke - aren't likely to be impressed by Louisville's three all-time national championship appearances in basketball. WTF? You do realize that between Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State and Virginia - the heart and soul of the ACC - they collectively have won two BCS-level bowls in their entire histories, and none since 1950? Louisville has won THREE since 1990! As for Duke, while they would surely consider themselves above Louisville in the basketball hierarchy, they also surely must have a healthy respect for any program with 10 Final Fours and 3 national titles. That places UofL third, behind only UNC and Duke, among ACC teams. Heck, just three years ago Duke also had 3 national titles. Good Lord. First of all, North Carolina still has a better football history than Louisville, AND a much richer basketball history. Re: Wake, et al, I didn't say every single team in the ACC. Duke has four national titles ... and six other national title game appearances. North Carolina has also reached the title game 10 times, winning five of them. Louisville cannot compare to Duke (or North Carolina) by any definition whatsoever. In terms of athletics success and prestige, Louisville is firmly in the lower third or so among ACC schools. Nothing you said suggests otherwise. "Good lord." - ooh, I said it too! Hey man ... Sorry about the "wtf" and "good lord", they were not necessary to my point. Back to the points: You seem to put a big premium on title game appearances. Not sure why, when most everyone measures elite basketball accomplishments by two things - Final 4s and national titles. UNC has 18/5 Duke has 15/4 Louisville has 10/3. Is that equal to what Duke and Carolina have? No. But as the about the 7th most accomplished program of all time, compared to UNC at #3 and Duke at #5, surely Louisville has a rich tradition worthy of everyone's respect. As for football, one can certainly argue UNC has a better football legacy than UofL, though it would have to be based on volume (several wins in Gator Bowls) not high quality. In any event, UNC's football history certainly doesn't blow UofL's out of the water. I don't think anyone can argue against the notion that adding Louisville raised the ACC's average legacy rating in both football and basketball.

Just FYI, Indiana has 5 national titles, which is why they are ahead of Louisville on those "all-time best" lists.

Shirley you must be joking .... Nope, not joking... Plenty of organizations have sued other organizations for infringing upon their acronym. The most well known instance was the big decade long legal battle over the acronym WWF. If the REAL AAC gets pissed enough or figures out that they could get a few million in free money from the new AAC, then they will sue. Sounds like they've expressed their minor ire at having to share AAC, are happy with the 5 seconds of media coverage it got them, and have moved on. Probably because it would be extremely difficult for the "Appalachian" to show any damages worth an attorney's time, and because the "American" is a pretty dry turnip to try and squeeze money out of anyway.

Also, as a non-P5, we are not just vulnerable from raiding by P5 conferences. As the last few months has show, we are now also vulnerable to raiding from other non-P5, especially the MWC. Going to 12 - as long as the 12th is a reasonably strong school - might make it less likely that western schools such as Houston and SMU are tempted to jump to the MWC. Like it or not, they are our real rivals right now.

Louisville has done basically nothing in football. A few really good seasons here and there, but for most of their football existence they've been an afterthought in crappy conferences. Most of the league's teams blow Louisville out of the water in terms of football success, and those that don't - specifically, Duke - aren't likely to be impressed by Louisville's three all-time national championship appearances in basketball. WTF? You do realize that between Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State and Virginia - the heart and soul of the ACC - they collectively have won two BCS-level bowls in their entire histories, and none since 1950? Louisville has won THREE since 1990! As for Duke, while they would surely consider themselves above Louisville in the basketball hierarchy, they also surely must have a healthy respect for any program with 10 Final Fours and 3 national titles. That places UofL third, behind only UNC and Duke, among ACC teams. Heck, just three years ago Duke also had 3 national titles. Good Lord.

Every Bulls fan should make the 650 mile trip to New Orleans to watch Tulane vs USF, as the Big Easy is probably the best good time party town in the USA. Yulman stadium sounds like it will be a nice, intimate place to watch, a big improvement over the cavernous and nearly-always-empty Super Dome.

True, but depending on what schools are lost in a raid, the ACC could be in a position where it feels it needs a basketball add more than a football add, and in that case surely Memphis would trump us. Temple would too.

Perception. We live in a media driven society, and sports more than anything else is tapped into that media. Just look at how ESPiN's fingerprints are on realignment. And in this media saturated culture, branding matters. It has nothing to do directly with on field performance; it has to do with popularity and converting that popularity into $$$ (which may indirectly affect the product on the field in the future). Look at the Rays. The re-branded themselves. Or the B1G. That's why I think its a big deal; I think its weak in terms of a brand. I get all that, but there's more to branding than a name. Regardless of the name, this is now a brand new conference, and it's going to be seen as such. The perception (and reality) is that we are now in a conference full of teams that no one else wanted. I'm hard-pressed to think of a name that would do anything to overcome that perception, and almost every name I've heard suggested by fans has been in jest. In my opinion, I'd dislike any name that has a number or a geographical region, because they limit what you can do as far as expansion. I'd also dislike any name that sounds too grandiose (e.g. "Big" anything), because that just invites derision. I think you just put a solid name on it, and go about trying to change the perception on the field. Good point about our perception issue. Nothing about our new name can change the "island of misfit toys" perception, that can only be changed on the field over a period of time. Agree about a number in the name being undesirable, but not completely about geographical region. The PAC and SEC have done just fine with that characteristic. In our case a geographical designation is undesirable because we really don't have one, but in general it's not a bad thing. The PAC (1915) and SEC (1932), with some members from the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association (1894), were formed way before gigantic TV deals and airplanes screwed up traditional regional rivalries. The widespread use of air travel means that rivalries don't need to be within driving distance any longer hence the use of geography in the name is no longer needed. If airplanes have obviated the need for rivalries to be within driving distance, why are almost all the major rivalries within driving distance? Sure, Notre Dame-USC isn't, but it's famous for being the only real "intersectional" rivalry, the exception that proves the rule across football and basketball: Ohio State-Michigan Army-Navy Pitt-WVU Florida-Georgia Florida-FSU FSU-Miami Auburn-Alabama USC-UCLA USCe-Clemson Duke-North Carolina Syracuse-Georgetown Texas-Texas AM ... and on and on. Distance seems to be a HUGE factor in rivalry formation, probably because a short distance means lots of daily elbow-rubbing between alumni in an area and thus constant competition for jobs, recruits, funding, prestige, local bragging rights, etc. Now true, you can note that all of these rivalries, with the exception of FSU-Miami, developed before air travel. But, name an important rivalry that is a product of air travel, a big rivalry consisting of teams that couldn't meet until air came along? I can't think of one. And why, when it comes to our Bulls, is UCF mentioned most often as the school we're likely to develop a big rivalry with? All of that said, I do agree that a geographical reference in the conference name isn't necessary for conference success. The Big 10 attests to that. But, it does seem that the most successful conferences are those characterized by a high level of geographic cohesion, regardless of what the name says. E.g., note that for conferences like the SEC and B1G, there is no "island hopping", every state that has a school borders on another state that has a school. Heck, even with their recent expansion, in the SEC, only two states don't border at least two other SEC states, and those states are not Missouri and Texas.

Yes, I agree that it is far more likely that we get in via a back-filling ACC after it's been raided by the B1G, SEC, or B12 than any other way. But, you make an important point with the "BE 2.0" comment: If we do get a back-fill invite, it will be after say North Carolina, Clemson, VT, Duke, FSU, and Virginia have left, so we won't be joining the "ACC" that we currently have in mind, much like a school like Memphis ended up in a "Big East" that looked very different, and worse, than the conference it thought it was joining. That ACC, consisting of say Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, USF, GT, UCF, Wake, Clemson, NC State, UConn, Cincy, BC, and Miami will look similar to the old Big East before the first 2003 raid. A very big upgrade for us, but not equivalent to joining today's ACC. And FWIW, i think we are fourth on the AAC back-fill invite list, behind Cincy, Uconn, and Houston. Never would have imagined us behind Houston, but the new TV deal, which has Houston in the top tier, makes it clear that this is how TV sees us.

BullsfaninTX, I think it unlikely we will have 4 bowls versus P5 conference. E.g., the SEC has a policy of only wanting bowl games vs other power conferences. As for bowls like Russell and Sun, they only wanted tie ins with the Big East when we had big names like Pitt and WVU and when Notre Dame was part of the package. Finally I do not think we can play our way out by winning the AAC. Winning has precious little to do with being invited to a power conference, otherwise Boise would be in one and Rutgers wouldn't. IMO we get promoted to the ACC only i f it so massively raided that it needs our warm body. Of course if that happens we won't be joi

Perception. We live in a media driven society, and sports more than anything else is tapped into that media. Just look at how ESPiN's fingerprints are on realignment. And in this media saturated culture, branding matters. It has nothing to do directly with on field performance; it has to do with popularity and converting that popularity into $$$ (which may indirectly affect the product on the field in the future). Look at the Rays. The re-branded themselves. Or the B1G. That's why I think its a big deal; I think its weak in terms of a brand. I get all that, but there's more to branding than a name. Regardless of the name, this is now a brand new conference, and it's going to be seen as such. The perception (and reality) is that we are now in a conference full of teams that no one else wanted. I'm hard-pressed to think of a name that would do anything to overcome that perception, and almost every name I've heard suggested by fans has been in jest. In my opinion, I'd dislike any name that has a number or a geographical region, because they limit what you can do as far as expansion. I'd also dislike any name that sounds too grandiose (e.g. "Big" anything), because that just invites derision. I think you just put a solid name on it, and go about trying to change the perception on the field. Good point about our perception issue. Nothing about our new name can change the "island of misfit toys" perception, that can only be changed on the field over a period of time. Agree about a number in the name being undesirable, but not completely about geographical region. The PAC and SEC have done just fine with that characteristic. In our case a geographical designation is undesirable because we really don't have one, but in general it's not a bad thing.