(04-02-2017 11:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

1) See A, B, C, D, and E below.
A) Why would a champs only format happen? The SEC is never going to be for it because they are virtually guaranteed to always send one team as is, and they want to ability to send a second. The B1G will probably always be against it because they are also probably guaranteed to virtually always send at least one team, and they would probably want to ability to send a second. Additionally, they would oppose it to keep ND from joining the ACC in full. ND will always use their control of the Indy vote to oppose it so they can have a stronger bargaining position w/ the ACC.
B) SU played 2 more driveable basketball games this year than it will in future years. Adding distant schools and screwing w/ schedules adds to costs - especially when it's coupled w/ having to play nobody schools in the middle of nowhere.
C) Plus there's the issue of convincing ND to stop playing almost every ACC rival that they have to play 3 schools that they don't care about: UL, Baylor, and TCU. The irony of telling ND that they can only play BC in conference once every 6 years, but they have to play TCU every year is a little much.
D) I honestly think that the ACC would be better off w/ Texas as a partial and no extra baggage than having Texas + 2 baggage schools. So why would the ACC push Texas to join? Having Texas as a partial means that every ACC school would get to play Texas on a regular basis (vs 2/3rd of the conference), and it would mean that the ACC would lose 4 football games, but it wouldn't have to shell out ~$60 million for TCU and Baylor. There's no way that TCU + Baylor + 4 Texas fb games is worth $60 million.
E) Good luck convincing Texas that they'd rather play that setup than 5 ACC fb games + OU + 5 Texas games (possibly including TAMU) + 1 big OOC game in FB.

2) The SEC isn't going to 18. "Hey Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, why play Alabama, Aurburn, and LSU when you can play WVU and Kansas" line wouldn't go over so well. If the SEC took OU and OSU, then KU, WVU, and probably MIZZOU would be on the table. All 3 of those schools are better fits for the B1G than UConn, Cincy, Temple, and any other school that you listed. And I have a hard time believing that the SEC would care if they lost MIZZOU. MIZZOU has turned into a mess since joining the SEC, and WVU is a better fit for the SEC east anyway.

And good luck convincing Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State that UConn football belongs in the B1G. I personally think that adding a 15 year old football program (at the FBS level) that plays on a toxic waste dump that's 20-30 minutes from campus to the conference that pushes its history the harder than any other FBS conference would be hilarious, but it won't happen - ever. So no, UConn doesn't fit in the B1G at all.

3) No. Your math is wrong. If 6 Big XII schools left the conference, the TV contract would be renegotiated downward. Assuming that the 4 remaining schools are worth $15 million each, and 4 additional schools were added worth $4 million each, the total 8 school conference TV payout would be $76 million. If FOX moved 4 Big XII schools to the Pac and kept the conference's media payout at a steady $25 million (which they would have to do to make the move happen), they would pay an incremental $100 million. Therefore, your solution would be $24 million more expensive, and FOX would arguably get worse content. Why would they do that?

4) See parts A, B, and C below.
A) AAU has next to nothing to do w/ academics, multiple B1G schools voted to kick Nebraska out, and all knew that Nebraska would be kicked out when Nebraska was added.
B) Given that the ACC has a history of being a markedly better academic conference, I doubt that the B1G is snobbier. It's possible, but it would be like saying that the SEC is snobbier than the B1G. It may be true, but it's unlikely.
C) What do you expect the B1G to say? "We don't even begin to care about academics and we'll invite anybody." I don't trust self-serving statements. It would be one thing if the statement went against their own interest. Then the only plausible motivation would be to tell the truth. But self-serving statements are puffery. (See the reasoning behind Rule 804(b)(3)(A) - Hearsay Exception - Statements Against Interest: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804)

1) See below:
A) It would give a clear cut path to the CFP, no more committees or computers. It would add value to the regular season & the extended conference championships. Why? More $$$. A champs only model was originally considered & would be easily done with a P4. $$$ has already been the overruling factor thus far.

B) 2 nobody schools? TCU just won the NIT & Baylor was a 3 seed in the tournament this year. Not to mention that their football teams has contended for CFP spots recently. While Baylor maybe in the middle of nowhere, TCU is in DFW area. The ACC is already going to a 20 game basketball schedule, so you may have to go to TCU instead of WF. Syracuse will still likely get Pitt & BC H&H. I'm not seeing the big deal here.

C) The divisions can be sit up differently, mine was just an example. Here's another: Texas/TCU/Baylor/UofL/Miami/WF, ND/Pitt/Syr/BC/VT/NCST, FSU/Clemson/NC/Duke/GT/Virginia.

D) The ACC would be better off financially with Texas in fully. If the ACC can get Texas without 2 tagalongs that would be ideal. Why have them though, for the same scheduling reasons you keep referring to for Syracuse. Without them Texas would always be traveling for away games. Their value would come from the ACCN & in their help in landing Texas. They also add 2 quality football teams as well.

E) Texas will need a conference for their Olympic sports. ESPN owns the LHN, good luck to them in convincing ESPN to let them go to FOX. I don't see Texas playing second fiddle to Alabama either. If the ACC were to land Texas, my preference would be with Houston & Cincinnati as the tagalongs.

2) Nice cherry picking of games there. Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia & Florida/LSU could all be rivalry games. They would get Kansas once every six years.

If they could be convinced that Maryland & Rutgers football belonged in the B1G, I don't think UCONN would be that far off. We'll agree to disagree on Missouri & UCONN.

3) Actually in this scenario 7 teams would have left the B12 & all going to ESPN. You're right though that the PAC could stay at 12 but they wouldn't get the extra $ from an extended conference championship or the benefits of expanding their network footprint eastward. I could see how FOX & the PAC could go either way here. The only real expense here would be bumping Houston up & a slight bump for the other 15. (Using random numbers for an example: $25 million for Houston plus $30 million to give the other 15 a $2 million bump= $55 million. Compare that to paying a new version of the B12: 10 teams X $10 million each= $100 million minus the decrease for 3 schools 3X$13 million)= $39 million. So that's about $6 million more to revamp the B12. That's also without any gains they may get by having those 4 included in the PACN.)

4) See below:
A) Nebraska was still a member of the AAU when they joined. I don't make the B1G guidelines, I just predict that they will follow them. Name 1 university that the B1G has invited that isn't an AAU member.

B) Obviously it's just my opinion that the B1G is snobbier but it has merit when you compare the history of the 2 conferences. For the record, I didn't think that UofL had shot at the ACC either but here we are. Has anyone in the ACC ever made comparable comments to Gee's?

C) I expect the B1G to show class, dignity & respect for others. Did you read Gee comments about ND & the SEC? They set their own guidelines, I think they will follow them.

5) If it weren't for the $, which Clemson & FSU are focused on, I would be happier with Cincinnati & WV IF the ACC were to expand at all. I really don't want Louisville stuck in a western division with Texas schools.