(04-15-2012 01:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 08:57 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  The SEC works with the ACC?

The SEC works for itself. It is commonly accepted that they indeed looked at adding ACC schools recently. The ACC reacted by working to up their buyouts--a move that was held back a bit by schools such as FSU and Maryland-- and rushing to add Pitt and SU. Had there not been a gentleman's agreement to not add same state schools some ACC schools would likely be in the SEC already.

In the MR SEC series Expansion by the Numbers http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/expansion-b...ig-finish/ the writers stressed over and over that they had been told by SEC officials that there was no "gentleman's agreement" with the ACC.

The current BIG 12 commissioner publicly spoke about the SEC having such an agreement. Sorry, but he is more in the know about such things than bloggers. It exists.

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don't believe the supposed agreement is with the ACC, but among the SEC members, particularly the SEC East members.

The idea being that they implicitly (rather than formally) agree to not support the candidacy of any school from an SEC state unless the school from that state who is already a member wants it.

So, in the case of FSU, assuming UF's support has not changed, it would not apply to them. On the other hand, lets hypothetically say the Kentucky legislature has pressured UK into supporting Louisville's candidacy but UK made it known to their buddies that they don't want UL in the SEC. The agreement would kick in and they would vote against UL. That way Kentucky gets what it wants and is still able to tell the legislature "gee we tried and voted for them, but they just didn't get enough votes"

I don't think any of us will ever know whether this agreement really exists (who would ever to admit to it) or if it's just an internet urban legend.

There is absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of doubt that The SEC would ever consider an urban university like UofL. That makes me very happy to say.
CJ

(04-15-2012 02:16 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:33 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  Curious to know Cardinal--if UL followers believe they will be invited to the B12--why haven't they already been invited? What would the holdup be?

We have been told 2 things needed to happen. This is according to Howie and some of the national media:

1. A new TV contract had to be inked. Not sure if it has been signed but it seems to be getting close. I think a WVU said it best. The new contract gives The Big 12 "a license to hunt." How do I know that they are not hunting bigger than Louisville and BYU? I don't other than the person on I know at the Big 12 marketing firm says the only two teams they have been told to prepare for are Louisville and BYU. I also have to go by what the Admin of FSU Warchant said yesterday:

This what written to a newbie poster on the FSU board:

You have 91 posts, 63 of those were in threads regarding the Big 12 BS, you and some postersv from WVU and UT found it interesting

There are still threads for the Big 12 on the smack board, Locker room, WVu has a whole forum dedicated to it.

This forum is for FSU football, the Big 12 thing is not news or even newsworthy and until someone with any credibility supports it, is a rumor. I did not delete it but will prevent a new one from popping up.



2. A new commissioner: The Big 12 wants the new commissioner to be on board. The top 3 candidates are Greg Shaheen, Jack Swarbrick and Britton Banowsky.

I have always believed Banowsky was the favorite because of his ties to SWC / Big 12 and Chuck Neinas is pushing him.

Now Shaheen may get the call. At least according to Kirk Bohls in Texas. Never heard of the guy until Bohls and Trammel started talking him up. He is former director of NCAA basketball tournament.

Haven't heard much about Swarbrick. The BYU people seem to think he would be their best option for their hopes of getting in. Not sure why.

None the less the guy is supposed to be on the job late June / early July.

Then expansion will take place. The Big 12 wants the new commissioner to make a splash by being involved in the expansion announcement.

Does any of this mean that The Big 12 is not chasing FSU, Clemson or anyone else? Absolutely not. I'm just saying I nor anyone I have spoken with in Texas has heard, read or saw anything on it.

Does inviting Louisville and BYU put and end to speculation that The Big 12 is going after FSU and Clemson, I sure hope not.
CJ

Sometimes the most likely reasons for things are the most obvious.

If the BIG 12 hasn't added teams like UL or BYU, both of which appear readily available and willing to come (especially UL) --then the most obvious reasons would be:

A) The BIG 12 isn't expanding

B) The BIG 12 is expanding but is waiting on someone or something else.

While it is true that the BIG 12 won't expand before there is a new commissioner, the main reason to wait for a new commissioner before expanding would be to get input from that person on the expansion candidates, or get that persons assistance in securing expansion candidates.

(04-15-2012 02:25 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  Sometimes the most likely reasons for things are the most obvious.

If the BIG 12 hasn't added teams like UL or BYU, both of which appear readily available and willing to come (especially UL) --then the most obvious reasons would be:

A) The BIG 12 isn't expanding

B) The BIG 12 is expanding but is waiting on someone or something else.

While it is true that the BIG 12 won't expand before there is a new commissioner, the main reason to wait for a new commissioner before expanding would be to get input from that person on the expansion candidates, or get that persons assistance in securing expansion candidates.

I agree but rest assured expansion candidates will already be chosen and approved by Texas and Oklahoma before the new commissioner arrives. He will give a cursory approval. Oklahoma has always wanted Louisville, Texas was not in our corner until earlier this year. I was PM'd 2 months ago by an ITV poster that Jurich and Dodds met in February and that Texas now supports Louisville to The Big 12. This posters source broke the Rick Pitino to Louisville story weeks before the national media so he is well connected.
CJ

(04-15-2012 06:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  First of all, if Florida State and Clemson break out of the ACC (which is a better way of saying it--if it happens, it's because FSU and Clemson ain't happy. ) one of two things happen.

One, more likely because ego >> money, (money just gives ego an excuse): Chapel Hill rallies and starts working their relationships to save the ACC. UNC and NC State have overlapping governing boards, Virginia and Duke REALLY don't want to leave North Carolina. Add in that Virginia Tech politically can't leave Virginia in the dust, and add in that Wake Forest knows that, if the ACC implodes, Wake Forest doesn't land a power conference spot. Make a public declaration by those six schools that the ACC is here to stay, and the ACC stays. It may lose members to the Big XVI, but the ACC will continue. And if the Virginia and North Carolina schools are off the table, then the Big Ten isn't interested, and the SEC is much less interested.

In that situation, the Big XVI East has Iowa State, West Virginia and picks up FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami and 2 more from the group of Pitt, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, UConn. That puts the ACC at 11 (they invite UConn and Rutgers if they're not XVI-bound) and they have to find a #12.

Two, if money beats ego, the ACC is done. The Big Ten gets first pick, and takes UNC, Duke, and two of GT, U-VA and U-Md. The SEC gets NC State, and Virginia Tech--either Virginia is in the Big Ten, or Virginia is sunk whatever VT does. Now Notre Dame is facing the four-superconference-apocalypse, still hates the Big Ten and still wants a "national schedule" and the Big XVI stretching from Texas to Miami to Morgantown and Ames is pretty national.

So the Big XVI East has Iowa State, West Virginia, FSU, Miami, Clemson, Notre Dame, and three of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Virginia/Maryland/GT.

I follow your argument to this point, you said in essence, with the Carolina schools off the table the SEC stays at 14. If that scenario was fulfilled that the Carolina and Virginia schools would form a core for a new ACC then the SEC never lets Clemson and Floridas State go to the Big 12. Why?

If it is apparent that the Big 12 survives, meaning no shot at an Oklahoma school for the SEC, and if the Virginia schools and Carolina schools are not moving, the SEC is not going to let the Big 12 in their back door.

Reason #1 the SEC schedule would be alot easier if we added two teams from the East allowing Mizzou to move West. Whether we have two divisions of 8 or 4 divisions of 4 the scheduling pressure would be relieved by adding two teams, and the pool for selection under this scenario is extremely restricted. They would take Clemson and F.S.U. because Clemson is a cultural fit, and academic add, and F.S.U. would net more money.

Reason #2 the acceptance of Clemson and F.S.U. would solidify the SEC's footprint adding one national brand which would mean more money inspite of the lack of TV market adds and with no other options to 16 Clemson and espicially F.S.U. are in if they desire to come.

The only way Clemson and F.S.U. move to the Big 12 is if the SEC can claim two ACC schools that do increase their market share. All of this being said, Clemson and F.S.U. aren't likely to move anywhere, least of all to the Big 12.

The whole time this thread of thought has been discussed on this board the only premise that makes any of this work is if the Big 10 takes Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and either Georgia Tech or Rutgers. I can't see the Big 10 taking both Duke and U.N.C. and if they don't and still made a move they would take Virginia, Rutgers, Maryland, and Tech. Then the SEC might take both U.N.C. and Duke and might likely move to either 18 or 20 by taking Virginia Tech and F.S.U., or even Clemson and N.C.State.

Nobody talks about it much, but if you have 4 divisions of 4 there isn't much difference in making it 4 divisions of 5. There are no rules restricting the numbers of teams in a conference. Even if the NCAA blocked the establishment of a playoff system for 4 divisions, it might well be that two ten team divisions could be set up with only the champions meeting. (Like having two seperate conferences with champions playing). The revenue bump would not be as large initially, but the power of negotiation over the largest viewing market encompassing the greatest talent pool in college football would be fairly formidable. And it would be more than enough reason to make such a move.

A 20 team conference would become a transitional step to an even larger one with possibly as many as 32 to 40 teams in 8 divisions. The move to four super conferences with a partner is just a transitional step toward 2 large leagues with divisional play anyway.

This process is moving slowly to avoid alienating alumni and donors. We might see 5 or 6 conferences for a while. Then there will be 4 with partners like the B1G and PAC. Then there will be essentially 2. Playoffs will be established. Bowls will still be in play as rewards for good teams with winning records who don't move deeply into the playoff rounds. The schools will earn more. Divisions will be geographically based to eliminiate overhead and spur fan participation. The playoffs will be structured to keep all 4 regions of the country interested until the final round. And shortsighted fans everywhere will eventually come to understand the wisdom, economic benefit, and appreciate the new rivalries and traditions that come about. (Because the "new rivalries" will actually be the reinstatement of old ones.)

No leader can move more rapidly than the vision of those they lead. They must sell their vision, and move towards it at a pace that keeps the majority on board. Economics drives this realignment. It's final destination is fairly obvious. The only question is how long until we get there, and what are the number and forms of the transitional states we must assume before completion.

The anxiety felt by so many is better placed on the economic and political factors impacting college sports, than on the sports themselves.

All of this is more a reflection of the global societal, and economic, restructuring than it is of anything else. It is in that greater context that Boise in the Big East and West Virginia in the Big 12 truly make no sense. When the economic shifts are felt more immediately West Virginia will play Pitt, Maryland, Va Tech, Marshall and other neighbors. They will not be playing because they desire to be in the same conference, or even share academic endeavors. They will play because it is more profitable to do so. The same is true for Missouri, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Boise, etc.

If global trends continue, none of this realignment will still be in place in two decades. That's how silly all of this really is. The cost of fuel and consequently travel, along with a deteriorating infrastructure and decreased funds for their repair, will necessitate regionalization of college sports, among many other things. Closer games will mean better fan participation. The U.S. will become less national, and more regional, in everything. And while that is not what we have been use to for the last 70 years, in the end it might not be so bad. JR

(04-15-2012 07:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  If NCSU and VT provide enough value to boost the SEC contract...

...and Miami, FSU, Clemson and GT provide enough value to boost the B12 contract...

...and Maryland and UVA provide enough value to boost the B1G contract...

...then either the ACC is seriously undervalued, or those schools need to drop BC, Duke, UNC, and Wake because they are really holding the league back financially.

I wouldn't think that UVA or Maryland would provide enough value to boost the Big 10ish contract

overlapping markets in Washington/Baltimore and neither school is ranked in football and we all know that is what has been driving this bus and will continue to drive it for the near future

(04-15-2012 02:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 06:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  First of all, if Florida State and Clemson break out of the ACC (which is a better way of saying it--if it happens, it's because FSU and Clemson ain't happy. ) one of two things happen.

One, more likely because ego >> money, (money just gives ego an excuse): Chapel Hill rallies and starts working their relationships to save the ACC. UNC and NC State have overlapping governing boards, Virginia and Duke REALLY don't want to leave North Carolina. Add in that Virginia Tech politically can't leave Virginia in the dust, and add in that Wake Forest knows that, if the ACC implodes, Wake Forest doesn't land a power conference spot. Make a public declaration by those six schools that the ACC is here to stay, and the ACC stays. It may lose members to the Big XVI, but the ACC will continue. And if the Virginia and North Carolina schools are off the table, then the Big Ten isn't interested, and the SEC is much less interested.

In that situation, the Big XVI East has Iowa State, West Virginia and picks up FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami and 2 more from the group of Pitt, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, UConn. That puts the ACC at 11 (they invite UConn and Rutgers if they're not XVI-bound) and they have to find a #12.

Two, if money beats ego, the ACC is done. The Big Ten gets first pick, and takes UNC, Duke, and two of GT, U-VA and U-Md. The SEC gets NC State, and Virginia Tech--either Virginia is in the Big Ten, or Virginia is sunk whatever VT does. Now Notre Dame is facing the four-superconference-apocalypse, still hates the Big Ten and still wants a "national schedule" and the Big XVI stretching from Texas to Miami to Morgantown and Ames is pretty national.

So the Big XVI East has Iowa State, West Virginia, FSU, Miami, Clemson, Notre Dame, and three of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Virginia/Maryland/GT.

I follow your argument to this point, you said in essence, with the Carolina schools off the table the SEC stays at 14. If that scenario was fulfilled that the Carolina and Virginia schools would form a core for a new ACC then the SEC never lets Clemson and Floridas State go to the Big 12. Why?

If Chapel Hill holds the ACC together, I could see the SEC taking Florida State, with Florida State "pulling a TCU" on the Big XVI. This SEC move would be largely to cripple the XVI. Without FSU, the XVI is a lot less attractive to Miami and GT. The XVI East without Florida State is much weaker than the West with Texas and Oklahoma. The ACC surviving means they compete to keep their northern-tier members and for Rutgers and UConn, and with FSU carrying the banner of the Big XVI and then bailing, the XVI doesn't look too stable.

Clemson gets the nod at No 16 after phone calls to Austin, Oklahoma, Maryland and maybe Kansas don't get returned. (Clemson doesn't add anything the SEC doesn't already have. But Clemson is a pretty good fallback plan.)

Quote:If it is apparent that the Big 12 survives, meaning no shot at an Oklahoma school for the SEC, and if the Virginia schools and Carolina schools are not moving, the SEC is not going to let the Big 12 in their back door.

The only way Clemson and F.S.U. move to the Big 12 is if the SEC can claim two ACC schools that do increase their market share. All of this being said, Clemson and F.S.U. aren't likely to move anywhere, least of all to the Big 12.

The premise is that Florida State/Clemson are unhappy enough to move. Once you're unhappy enough to move, it's about having a halfway-decent opportunity.

Quote:The whole time this thread of thought has been discussed on this board the only premise that makes any of this work is if the Big 10 takes Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and either Georgia Tech or Rutgers. I can't see the Big 10 taking both Duke and U.N.C.

North Carolina is a big and growing state. And Duke is a national brand in basketball, and a top-notch academic school. Look at it this way--would the Big Ten want Duke and Carolina in the SEC? Duke and Tar Heel baskebtall would be a huge asset to the BTN.

Quote: and if they don't and still made a move they would take Virginia, Rutgers, Maryland, and Tech. Then the SEC might take both U.N.C. and Duke and might likely move to either 18 or 20 by taking Virginia Tech and F.S.U., or even Clemson and N.C.State.

The Big Ten is on a different level academically and research-wise than the SEC, and that's important for some reason to college presidents. Why would the Big Ten settle for Rutgers or Maryland and leave Duke and/or Carolina on the table?

Quote:Nobody talks about it much, but if you have 4 divisions of 4 there isn't much difference in making it 4 divisions of 5. There are no rules restricting the numbers of team in a conference. Even if the NCAA blocked the establishment of a playoff system for 4 divisions, it might well be that two ten team divisions could be set up with only the champions meeting. (Like having two seperate conferences with champions playing). The revenue bump would not be as large initially, but the power of negotiation over the largest viewing market encompassing the greatest talent pool in college football would be fairly formidable. And it would be more than enough reason to make such a move.

A 20 team conference would become a transitional step to a even larger one with possibly as many as 32 to 40 teams in 8 divisions. The move to four super conferences with a partner is just a transitional step toward 2 large leagues with divisional play anyway.

This process will move slowly to avoid alienating alumni and donors. We might see 5 or 6 conferences for a while. Then there will be 4 with partners like the B1G and PAC. Then there will be essentially 2. Playoffs will be established. Bowls will still be in play as rewards for good teams with winning records who don't move deeply into the playoff rounds. The schools will earn more. Divisions will be geographically based to eliminiate overhead and spur fan participation. The playoffs will be structured to keep all 4 regions of the country interested until the final round. And shortsighted fans everywhere will eventually come to understand the wisdom, economic benefit, and appreciate the new rivalries and traditions that come about. (Because the "new rivalries" will actually be the reinstatement of old ones.)

No leader can move more rapidly than the vision of those they lead. They must sell their vision, and move towards it at a pace that keeps the majority on board. Economics drives this realignment. It's final destination is fairly obvious. The only question is how long until we get there, and what are the number and forms of the transitional states we must assume before completion.

The anxiety felt by so many is better placed on the economic and political factors impacting college sports, than on the sports themselves.

All of this is more a reflection of the global societal, and economic, restructuring than it is of anything else. It is in that greater context that Boise in the Big East and West Virginia in the Big 12 truly make no sense. When the economic shifts are felt more immediately West Virginia will play Pitt, Maryland, Va Tech, Marshall and other neighbors. They will not be playing because they desire to be in the same conference, or even share academic endeavors. They will play because it is more profitable to do so. The same is true for Missouri, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Boise, etc.

If global trends continue, none of this realignment will still be in place in two decades. That's how silly all of this really is. The cost of fuel, travel, along with deteriorating infrastructure, will necessitate regionalization of college sports. Closer games will mean better fan participation. The U.S. will become less national, and more regional, in everything. And that might not be so bad. JR

(04-15-2012 02:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:25 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  Sometimes the most likely reasons for things are the most obvious.

If the BIG 12 hasn't added teams like UL or BYU, both of which appear readily available and willing to come (especially UL) --then the most obvious reasons would be:

A) The BIG 12 isn't expanding

B) The BIG 12 is expanding but is waiting on someone or something else.

While it is true that the BIG 12 won't expand before there is a new commissioner, the main reason to wait for a new commissioner before expanding would be to get input from that person on the expansion candidates, or get that persons assistance in securing expansion candidates.

I agree but rest assured expansion candidates will already be chosen and approved by Texas and Oklahoma before the new commissioner arrives. He will give a cursory approval. Oklahoma has always wanted Louisville, Texas was not in our corner until earlier this year. I was PM'd 2 months ago by an ITV poster that Jurich and Dodds met in February and that Texas now supports Louisville to The Big 12. This posters source broke the Rick Pitino to Louisville story weeks before the national media so he is well connected.
CJ

I'm sure your AD has discussions with others--these days any school with a pulse would be crazy not to. Texas and Oklahoma don't run that conference by themselves and all of the members are going to be listening to primarily---their television partners as far as who to bring. If Texas has reservations it would be because UL doesn't bring enough $$ to the table from a tv standpoint --everything else is minimal. This is why WVU was added to the BIG 12.

(04-15-2012 03:15 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 07:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  If NCSU and VT provide enough value to boost the SEC contract...

...and Miami, FSU, Clemson and GT provide enough value to boost the B12 contract...

...and Maryland and UVA provide enough value to boost the B1G contract...

...then either the ACC is seriously undervalued, or those schools need to drop BC, Duke, UNC, and Wake because they are really holding the league back financially.

I wouldn't think that UVA or Maryland would provide enough value to boost the Big 10ish contract

overlapping markets in Washington/Baltimore and neither school is ranked in football and we all know that is what has been driving this bus and will continue to drive it for the near future

UVA--tv viewers in the state of VA with 8 plus million--plus close to the D.C. market as well--D.C., Richmond and Tidewater all in play. UMD brings the state of Maryland and the D.C. and Baltimore markets. Both are big schools, both are AAU schools.

Together=BIG $$$$ for the Big 10

Totally plausible expansion scenario...

Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's reworked deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about the revised deal; however, that article was written almost three months ago and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to what the new B12 deal will be. To say otherwise is simply delusional, IMO.

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

(04-15-2012 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

Agree with your first sentence. The fact is that nobody knows. You will note, I am not saying the OP is wrong; although I do disagree with him. As I have said, I don't know how all this shakes out, neither does he. My only issue with the OP is that he makes sweeping declarations like the one made in his first post and then he follows up with a "you know it, I know it, everybody knows it" statement. Um, no, NOBODY knows anything factually. When people don't at least recognize this caveat when they make these kind of statements, I just want to respectfully remind them of it. That's all.

If the OP does have hard facts - not agenda driven speculation or theories - then I am all ears!

(04-15-2012 10:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

Agree with your first sentence. The fact is that nobody knows. You will note, I am not saying the OP is wrong; although I do disagree with him. As I have said, I don't know how all this shakes out, neither does he. My only issue with the OP is that he makes sweeping declarations like the one made in his first post and then he follows up with a "you know it, I know it, everybody knows it" statement. Um, no, NOBODY knows anything factually. When people don't at least recognize this caveat when they make these kind of statements, I just want to respectfully remind them of it. That's all.

If the OP does have hard facts - not agenda driven speculation or theories - then I am all ears!

I agree with you completely except that the person you originally agreed with does the exact same thing you are calling out the OP on.

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's reworked deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about the revised deal; however, that article was written almost three months ago and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to what the new B12 deal will be. To say otherwise is simply delusional, IMO.

The OP posted a blog for discussion. Period. The OP didn't write, contribute, "cite as evidence", etc. the blog (nor did any WVU fans).

As for the tv contract report from a respected sports business organization--it is far more than "speculation"--some want to pretend its a blog or message board creation. It was written using unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the meetings. It's also funny that the same people that attempt to disparage the reported ACC contract accept without doubt the report of the BIG 12's contract---last I looked they both came from the same place. In the end, it's much more likely for the numbers for the ACC to be close to the reported $1-$2 million additional, than for the numbers to come out as a $100 plus million for the addition of two average football programs as ACC apologists speculate.

(04-15-2012 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

There is a big difference here. ACC apologists have cited nothing-absolutely nothing--to support their claims that the ACC is stable and is going to receive a $100 plus million bump for the additions of two middle of the road football programs.

On the other side, people aren't just making things up. Reference is made to real reports and happenings i.e.--ACC teams such as FSU have created expansion/realignment committees to look into membership elsewhere. The ACC tried to raise its buyout into the $30 plus million range, but were shot down by some of their own members and it ended up at $20 million (the same number WVU "paid" to leave the BE btw). More importantly perhaps, came a report from a respected sports news information source that people with direct knowledge of the ACC renegotiation meetings reported that a $1 to $ 2 million bump for adding the two BE programs was in the works between ESPN and the ACC.

To then suggest that the two sides are equal is just a bit misleading. One side is hoping this or that does or doesn't happen, the other is using actual occurrences and reports to discuss things.

All I know for sure is that some of you guys take this stuff way too seriously...

(04-16-2012 08:21 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

There is a big difference here. ACC apologists have cited nothing-absolutely nothing--to support their claims that the ACC is stable and is going to receive a $100 plus million bump for the additions of two middle of the road football programs.

On the other side, people aren't just making things up. Reference is made to real reports and happenings i.e.--ACC teams such as FSU have created expansion/realignment committees to look into membership elsewhere. The ACC tried to raise its buyout into the $30 plus million range, but were shot down by some of their own members and it ended up at $20 million (the same number WVU "paid" to leave the BE btw). More importantly perhaps, came a report from a respected sports news information source that people with direct knowledge of the ACC renegotiation meetings reported that a $1 to $ 2 million bump for adding the two BE programs was in the works between ESPN and the ACC.

To then suggest that the two sides are equal is just a bit misleading. One side is hoping this or that does or doesn't happen, the other is using actual occurrences and reports to discuss things.

There is absolutely no evidence that the ACC is about to lose teams. None. The article you cite about the supposed finalization of the ACC deal was written in early February - now almost 3 months ago. Since there has not been a peep about the deal from either the ACC or ESPN since that time, I would expect they are still negotiating. Furthermore, I am sorry, but how many times over the years during this whole realignment process have we all heard a "breaking story" kind of article citing "unnamed sources with direct knowledge" that turned out to be 100% incorrect? How many times did "unnamed sources" have WVU "gone" to the SEC over the past couple of years?

I remember the article on the FSU committee. It was establishing an advisory group to advise the AD on matters pertaining to athletics across ALL FSU sports. Many schools now have such committees. Nowhere in the article did it state that it's purpose was for expansion/realignment.

The issue on the buyout is fascinating. The ACC sharply increase their buyout up to $20M, and people apply a spin that because one or two schools didn't want to raise it even higher they must have one foot out the door. One could logically assume, however, if these schools had one foot out the door, they would vote to not increasing the buyout at all. See BE.

Look, I am not saying that you could not be correct. However, IMO, you are doing what a lot of us do from time to time. You have a scenario that you want to be true, so you fit a number of things into that narrative, even if a reasonable person might point out why this is just as likely to be untrue.

But, hey, that's the fun of these message boards, isn't it!!

I think you have it nailed, Eagle...

(04-16-2012 09:06 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 08:21 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Agreed Dr. I always chuckle when I see posts like the one here from the OP where such sweeping statements are made such as "ACC football as a major player in the college landscape is living on borrowed time". This is, of course, his opinion, driven by his own agenda; which is cool. However, those of us who view it as nonsense should feel equally as free to state as such.

I find it truly amazing the OP cites as is "evidence" an opinion blog written by a self professed "fan". This blog simply stated an opinion of the blogger. No facts. No credible sources that could be named. Just an opinion. Maybe it's just me, but when I see hard reporting on this subject from credible news outlets, with credible sources, then I will pay attention.

The fact is that nobody knows what the ACC's next deal will be. Yes, there was the speculative article about what the author felt the ACC deal would be; however that article was written almost three months ago, and it was simply their speculation.

The plain and simple truth is that NONE of us know what the reworked ACC deal will be compared to the new B12 deal. To say otherwise is simply delusional.

If we dont know then it could go either way. That means those that speak about negative possibilities for the ACC are just as logical in their approach as those that think the ACC is untouchable.

That doesn't make Doc right in his statement. That just makes him a jerk that cant handle anyone with an opinion different than his own.

At least you are respectful with your opposing view.

There is a big difference here. ACC apologists have cited nothing-absolutely nothing--to support their claims that the ACC is stable and is going to receive a $100 plus million bump for the additions of two middle of the road football programs.

On the other side, people aren't just making things up. Reference is made to real reports and happenings i.e.--ACC teams such as FSU have created expansion/realignment committees to look into membership elsewhere. The ACC tried to raise its buyout into the $30 plus million range, but were shot down by some of their own members and it ended up at $20 million (the same number WVU "paid" to leave the BE btw). More importantly perhaps, came a report from a respected sports news information source that people with direct knowledge of the ACC renegotiation meetings reported that a $1 to $ 2 million bump for adding the two BE programs was in the works between ESPN and the ACC.

To then suggest that the two sides are equal is just a bit misleading. One side is hoping this or that does or doesn't happen, the other is using actual occurrences and reports to discuss things.

There is absolutely no evidence that the ACC is about to lose teams. None. The article you cite about the supposed finalization of the ACC deal was written in early February - now almost 3 months ago. Since there has not been a peep about the deal from either the ACC or ESPN since that time, I would expect they are still negotiating. Furthermore, I am sorry, but how many times over the years during this whole realignment process have we all heard a "breaking story" kind of article citing "unnamed sources with direct knowledge" that turned out to be 100% incorrect? How many times did "unnamed sources" have WVU "gone" to the SEC over the past couple of years?

I remember the article on the FSU committee. It was establishing an advisory group to advise the AD on matters pertaining to athletics across ALL FSU sports. Many schools now have such committees. Nowhere in the article did it state that it's purpose was for expansion/realignment.

The issue on the buyout is fascinating. The ACC sharply increase their buyout up to $20M, and people apply a spin that because one or two schools didn't want to raise it even higher they must have one foot out the door. One could logically assume, however, if these schools had one foot out the door, they would vote to not increasing the buyout at all. See BE.

Look, I am not saying that you could not be correct. However, IMO, you are doing what a lot of us do from time to time. You have a scenario that you want to be true, so you fit a number of things into that narrative, even if a reasonable person might point out why this is just as likely to be untrue.

But, hey, that's the fun of these message boards, isn't it!!

Well I think that the votes would have been there for the ACC to raise the buyout to the higher number in the 30+ million range. FSU would have probably voted against it knowing that it would still pass but they would have been on record as being against a buyout. With the negotiated buyout the ACC now has FSU on record as being FOR the buyout. That is worth the compromise for the ACC.

Just imagine how us crazies would be if FSU would have had their vote recorded as being against the buyout increase?