Oliver Luck on the possible BIG 12/ACC alliance

[Buckaineer]

excerpt:



So why would the Big 12 consider aligning or getting near or even within
shouting distance of the football-weak ACC? If the goal is to pump up
the league's non-conference schedules, why not call SEC commissioner
Mike Slive again? Why not text Pac-12 commish Larry Scott or Big Ten
head Jim Delany?



Also, didn't West Virginia recently cancel a football game with the ACC's best football program in Florida State?


Know, though, WVU athletic director Oliver Luck is in favor of the alliance.



"I like the idea," Luck said on Thursday. "There are still a lot of
questions on what [the alliance] really means, but I like it."


He - and perhaps only he within the Big 12 - should.



"For [WVU] it's good," Luck said. "I can't say why Iowa State would support it, but for us it makes sense."



Indeed, Mountaineer fans would be better able to literally follow their
team for a couple games a year. Also, there are and will be old WVU
rivals in the ACC.



"When the Pac-12 and Big Ten had an alliance, I thought that was smart,"
Luck said. "Of course, that's since been stopped, but it made sense.
The ACC will be good for us. It might be a way to get Pitt back on the
schedule."

http://wvgazette.com/Sports/201301310220?page=1

 

[Buckaineer]

and here's what Luck had to say about the league approaching the NCAA on the championship thing:



In addition to the potential of an alliance, the Big 12 is exploring the
possibility of a league championship game. Currently, NCAA rules state a
conference must have 12 teams. But Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby, whose
league has just 10, said he might ask for an exemption.



"His thought is it's wise to do the NCAA stuff and have it in pocket in
case there's a consensus to have [a championship]," Luck said. "Now,
with the new playoff structure, is it wise to have one? Can it help or
hurt?"



Luck wouldn't disclose his stance, but it sounds as if he's against the idea.



"All agree it's smart to petition the NCAA," Luck said. "I'm not sure if
I'm for or against a [league championship] game ... Of course, the NCAA
may say no."


http://wvgazette.com/Sports/201301310220?page=2

 

[TheRedSon]

They've said "no" to multiple requests by conferences with less than 12 teams before.

 

[bobhertzel'ssweatpants]

That Alliance crap with the ACC is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It makes it appear like we are back in the Big East again. Just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. I realize they can't force Florida State to leave the ACC without seeing what moves the B1G & SEC are going to make first, but why say anything at all if that's the best thing you can come up with for the league right now? An Alliance with the ACC? GTFO.

 

[Buckaineer]

FSU and Clemson and schools like Louisville don't have any other expansion options. The BIG 12 isn't waiting on the B1G or SEC to see what those schools want to do with those conferences. The BIG 12 doesn't want to expand (or not enough to make it happen do).

It is a money issue (and of course UT doesn't want to do it for some strange reasoning). But you don't want to dilute your revenues in the end and it doesn't seem for certain that they can increase revenues enough so everyone moves ahead instead of some moving back.

It's also probably just that some ACC schools are holding on until the last minute. They are trying to keep that league from falling apart and like the regional--for the most part nature of it.

In the end though it certainly appears the PAC, B1G, SEC and BIG 12 ALL will be earning significantly more in revenues than ACC schools will. Eventually if you are a UVA or Georgia Tech--what makes you NOT make that move? If you can earn $15 million or more per year in the B1G--academics are better for your school, athletics are better for your school, exposure is better for your school---then what exactly are you doing holding your school in the ACC? Tradition? Those schools are throwing away hundreds of millions of $$ of benefit to their universities for politeness and tea and crumpets in Chapel Hill every now and then?

At some point the people leading those schools has to look at the bottom line. You aren't likely to end up any worse athletically in the B1G, academically its a vast improvement and the financial difference in benefit is so enormous that you are doing your university a great disservice if you don't move conferences.

Once the decisions based on fact rather than emotions are made, then those schools are going to be moving in droves as quickly as they can find better homes. For schools like FSU and Clemson, there new situation will be best suited in the BIG 12 because the B1G and SEC have no need to add schools as they are to achieve their goals and hold to their expansion needs.

 

[CT Mountaineer]

I don't know if "academically" the B1G is any better than anybody else, but research wise it certainly is much better. People throw around the work "academics" often really meaning "research". The two are very different qualities with little relationship to each other, especially at the undergraduate level. In fact, sometimes having too much research can harm academics because your best professors aren't free to teach.

You really can't quantify that "academics" thing, but research is very measurable, and the B1G does more of it than just about anybody else. Notre Dame does very little of it, and Boston College almost none, but those schools, rightly or wrongly, are hyped as good academic institutions.

 

[MountainBill]

I'd rather play these team "In Conference" than allow them to


pad their schedules with A1 talent from the Big 12. Adding 6 teams from the ACC gives WVU some really attractive away games and it gives the Big 12 the kind of foot print that makes them stable for decades to come....Why prop up your enemy? Screw this alliance $hit. Take no prisoners.