(10-15-2013 07:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the Vandy Med Center is the best hospital in the south. That's where I got my transplant. It's also where they finally diagnosed the neurological problem making my heart to stop at odd intervals, which led to me passing out behind the wheel 3x. I'm lucky I survived long enough for them to figure out all my medical issues. Amazingly enough, I'm still fully functional, unless you're counting the fact that I have trouble remembering what happened 5 minutes ago...

Glad to hear that Vandy was able to help you... they really do amazing things there, especially in the children's hospital. We are fortunate in the South to have so many amazing research hospitals that are no more than a day's drive for most of us.

(10-16-2013 07:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:32 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:24 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  There are three large dynamics working against anybody in the ACC leaving to the SEC.


1) GoR

2) Long term revenue potential. By 2050, half the country will live in the ACC footprint. There aren't many TV sets in Mississippi. Even a low pick up rate through the ACC football is still bank if the ACC operates its own channel (which it is in the process of doing).

3) If you are serious about academics -- and holding your athletes to those same academic standards -- you are playing each week with two hands tied behind your back. You will have to lower your standards or you will never be successful.

There is that pesky ACCN issue. If that falls apart, money talks, and SEC money might turn the tables.

I think I've been approaching the next catalyst for realignment incorrectly (or maybe just not listening to you guys if its been mentioned). Without an AACN, there is no way they are going to be anywhere close to the other three when it comes to distribution. In the TV networks opinions, the value just isn't there. Thus the question for FOX/ESPN is what is more valuable, stability or low overhead?

Without a conference network, a GOR is simply kicking the can down the road. In ten years, the distribution inequities will rear their head once again and the solutions won't be that dissimilar than they are right now:

1. Renegotiate the distributions of the ACC/B12 to B1G/SEC/PAC levels.

2. Part out either the ACC/B12 to create a P4 worthy of a network.

3. Part out both the ACC/B12 to create a P3.

4. Create a combined network for both the ACC/B12.

If you are running FOX/ESPN, which solution would you choose?

Good thoughts, Vandiver, and I think JR has it right. If networks could choose, 4 conferences representing distinct regions/cultures with 18 +/- teams each creates the interest and content to run a network for each. 18 schools provides a ton of content in basketball and baseball, and more then enough football games to fill a network for three time slots on Saturday and another on a Thursday or Friday night if they choose to do so while still leaving top shelf games for huge network money. 3 conferences of 20 teams would be no problem for the SEC; we could get to 24 schools in a heartbeat that fit our mold. The problem is with the B1G's picky nature and general lack of solid 2nd state schools in their footprint. The PAC at 20 is very thin unless they can take 8 from the Big 12, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would all need to be part of that 8 for it to be considered an improvement.

I can see a PAC 20 as an idea since in theory it solves both conferences problems.

The PAC gets their central Time zone games and more content for PACN

The B12 schools get the coastal population connection to TV sets they need and the academic connections several of them want

The set up allows both leagues to (mostly) retain their regional identities (original PAC 10 and a Central division,)

PAC Coastal Division: UW/WSU/UO/OSU/SU/Cal/UCLA/USC/UA/ASU
PAC Range Division: CU/UU/OU/OSU/UT/TTU/BU/TCU/KU/KSU

...Of course you may recognize this as the exact same marriage of convenience between content and population that created the original Big 12 and therefore is likely to have a lot of its same issues down the road

(10-17-2013 06:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I can see a PAC 20 as an idea since in theory it solves both conferences problems.

The PAC gets their central Time zone games and more content for PACN

The B12 schools get the coastal population connection to TV sets they need and the academic connections several of them want

The set up allows both leagues to (mostly) retain their regional identities (original PAC 10 and a Central division,)

PAC Coastal Division: UW/WSU/UO/OSU/SU/Cal/UCLA/USC/UA/ASU
PAC Range Division: CU/UU/OU/OSU/UT/TTU/BU/TCU/KU/KSU

...Of course you may recognize this as the exact same marriage of convenience between content and population that created the original Big 12 and therefore is likely to have a lot of its same issues down the road

10th,

You're absolutely right on the marriage of convenience aspect of such a merger. I think the difference would be that the TV network would ensure that the distributions were not that dissimilar, thus keeping everyone happy. Of course, much like A&M position regarding UT, I expect CU would vote no on principal. They could probably convince UU to vote against such a deal as well. IMO, the PAC can only be divided in a N/S configuration.

Im sure Colorado (and Utah) absolutely dont want to be sent back into a Central Division...particularly one that has their old pal Bevo in it (you may notice its not just the A&M & Mizzou fans who want nothing to do with them anymore...Just as CU would vote to keep them out of the PAC, so too will NU fans would vote to keep them out of the B1G as well)

As for the N/S, I just dont see that working because the northern schools would be cut off from their major recruiting grounds in southern California and potentially Texas

IMO its the opposite, only a E/W approach works, because it ensures everyone gets access to either Cali or Texas recruiting trips every year.

(10-17-2013 09:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im sure Colorado (and Utah) absolutely dont want to be sent back into a Central Division...particularly one that has their old pal Bevo in it (you may notice its not just the A&M & Mizzou fans who want nothing to do with them anymore...Just as CU would vote to keep them out of the PAC, so too will NU fans would vote to keep them out of the B1G as well)

As for the N/S, I just dont see that working because the northern schools would be cut off from their major recruiting grounds in southern California and potentially Texas

IMO its the opposite, only a E/W approach works, because it ensures everyone gets access to either Cali or Texas recruiting trips every year.

Do ISU, KU and KSU rely on TX that much? I'm not sure, but the PAC has already worked out the Cali issue with the current N/S split. I could see being cut off from TX as being a determent to the Big 8 remnants though.

I would think a 20 team PAC would form pods of 5 teams each, so you could avoid some of the pitfalls by mixing up the regions, something like:

Pod A - Washington, Cal, Arizona, Texas, Kansas

Pod B - Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Oklahoma, Baylor

Pod C - Washington State, Stanford, Arizona State, Kansas State, Texas Tech

Pod D - Oregon State, USC, Oklahoma State, Colorado, TCU

I know that is not perfect for rivalry/interest purposes, but the point is that you could put a Texas and California school in different pods and guarantee everyone a connection to those two state. They would just need to have some permanent crossovers to make sure the most important games continue.