(01-16-2014 10:06 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 07:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  keep in mind Notre Dame is a member for non-football sports. That is another reason to take Cincinnati to fill in gao between Notre Dame and Pitt.

of course if ND and cincy end up joining ACC full time, they will not be in the same pod.

I don't think that ACC basketball has any gaps. ND CLEARLY doesn't mind playing on the east coast, and a game in the Chicago area every other year isn't going to kill any ACC team. SU used to play in the same conference as ND (Chi area), DePaul (Chi), and Marquette (Wisc.), and we survived. I would MUCH rather have Georgetown filling in the UMD hole. GU has better non-football, better ACC rivalries, and better academics.

UC has a good athletic dept., but I don't see what they add that is worth anything to the ACC. IMHO, they would do great in the Big XII, and the Big XII has a MASSIVE gap that UC could help fill. That's where UC should go.

I think that UH would do well there, too. Winning back Houston would be excellent for recruiting. It's not coincidence that OU has billboards in Houston advertising their football program. They miss A&M.

While UC makes a little bit of sense in bridging the gap to WVU, they would only detract the current monetary payouts per member in the Big12. Their addition would also require an adjustment to the number of times that the north teams can play in Texas and Oklahoma per year. So they are a no go. Central Florida would make another island and decrease payout for the conference members. Again, no go. If you can't add to the current members payouts, we don't want to add you to our conference. Hopefully, the ACC pushing an advanced form of league championship game will put all of this expansion mess to bed.

Not sure the ACC's proposal would be to allow 10-team conferences the freedom to host a CG.

(01-17-2014 01:12 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 10:06 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 07:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  keep in mind Notre Dame is a member for non-football sports. That is another reason to take Cincinnati to fill in gao between Notre Dame and Pitt.

of course if ND and cincy end up joining ACC full time, they will not be in the same pod.

I don't think that ACC basketball has any gaps. ND CLEARLY doesn't mind playing on the east coast, and a game in the Chicago area every other year isn't going to kill any ACC team. SU used to play in the same conference as ND (Chi area), DePaul (Chi), and Marquette (Wisc.), and we survived. I would MUCH rather have Georgetown filling in the UMD hole. GU has better non-football, better ACC rivalries, and better academics.

UC has a good athletic dept., but I don't see what they add that is worth anything to the ACC. IMHO, they would do great in the Big XII, and the Big XII has a MASSIVE gap that UC could help fill. That's where UC should go.

I think that UH would do well there, too. Winning back Houston would be excellent for recruiting. It's not coincidence that OU has billboards in Houston advertising their football program. They miss A&M.

While UC makes a little bit of sense in bridging the gap to WVU, they would only detract the current monetary payouts per member in the Big12. Their addition would also require an adjustment to the number of times that the north teams can play in Texas and Oklahoma per year. So they are a no go. Central Florida would make another island and decrease payout for the conference members. Again, no go. If you can't add to the current members payouts, we don't want to add you to our conference. Hopefully, the ACC pushing an advanced form of league championship game will put all of this expansion mess to bed.

Not sure the ACC's proposal would be to allow 10-team conferences the freedom to host a CG.

If they want Big12 support, then yes they would. At the very least, they wouldn't stand in the way of a P-5 conference hosting their own championship game according to their own merits. Not that the conference needs a championship game. Round robins tend to take care of that concern. Regardless, if teams aren't adding to the payout then they shouldn't be (and won't be) added. And a CCG isn't enough to offset any significant additions not from a P-5 conference.

I think you guys are focusing on the wrong parts of what I'm saying. What I'm SAYING is that it's a branding issue. UCF may be a fine school, and they're certainly building their athletics department...but people still see "directional school from Florida" and have a hard time figuring out why they're significantly more deserving than a Western Kentucky or an Eastern Michigan. Like it or not, folks outside of Orlando tend to lump them all together.

(01-17-2014 12:07 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:57 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:49 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 01:03 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 11:00 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC's move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month -- that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

"We didn't want them in,'' DeFilippo told the Globe. "It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.''

The fact that BC didn't want Uconn in the ACC seems pretty clear. However, Uconn fans like to forget three important points also associated with this issue:

1. Uconn was considered by many to be the lead in the lawsuit against BC, Miami, and the ACC in 2003-2004. BC and ACC leaders were sued PERSONALLY. The suit was based in Connecticut and conducted by the then-CT State Officials. See the attached and note the comments by these aforementioned CT State Officials. Boston College and Miami were exiting the Big East under the Big East's own exit provisions. You can imagine that the charges of "fraud" and "deceit" did not sit well with them.

https://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570/

2. Boston College is ONE VOTE in the ACC. It is ludicrous to suggest that they alone had the power to derail Uconn getting into the ACC. (What is even more laughable is that these same Uconn fans often mocked BC as having no influence whatsoever in the ACC. Now, when it suits them, they portray BC as this all-powerful presence dictating ACC decisions.)

A number of other schools had to likewise not elect to extend an invitation to Uconn. Of course, since many of the ACC school and Conference officials back in 2003 are still around, could that also be a factor in the ultimate selections? It's just my opinion, of course, but maybe it wasn't such a good idea to take the vocal lead in a lawsuit filed PERSONALLY against ACC school and Conference officials, when you would, a few years later, be asking those same people to include you in their club.

Uconn fans in these threads seem to believe that nothing prior to the 2011 had anything to do with how events played out for them with the ACC. In my opinion, they are the ones who are deluding themsleves.

3. In my opinion, I do believe that the so-called "market block" was also a factor in this. So what? These type of "market blocks" are speculated about in these threads and elsewhere all the time. People often speculate on this being the reason any one of a number of ACC teams were not scooped up at one time or another by the SEC.

The funny thing is that many UMass fans claim that Uconn has exercised the same "market block" on Umass getting into the AAC. It is interesting to note that since Uconn elevated their program to FBS, they have played Umass only ONCE - and no future games are scheduled at this point. This is interesting as both are flagship schools in neighboring states that are the closest FBS programs to one another.

Personally, I think Uconn fans engage in a bit of hypocrisy bringing up this "market block" topic.

I concede that some may be hypocritical in that regard. I however am not and would welcome UMass into the AAC or an annual OOC game with them. I'd love to see UConn play UMass at Gillette every other year and actually feel at this juncture the two FBS state flagships in New England should be working in concert.

They opened the season against eachother last year. It was enjoyable, yet completely uncompetitive. Uconn is not running from local competition, and there has never been a report that UConn is blocking Umass from joining the AAC.

It's an imaginary hypocrisy. If UConn did block Umass eventually in their pursuit of AAC membership, I'd be embarassed for my alma mater. I just have a hard time seeing the AAC extend that invitation as things currently stand.

Yes, Uconn did play Umass last year. I mentioned that in my thread. Again, what I find interesting is that Umass and Uconn are two neighboring state flagship universities that are located closer to one another then any other FBS program. Uconn has been D1 for over a decade and has only played Uconn once, with no follow up games scheduled. Interesting. The inference that Umass is not competitive to Uconn is a bit strange. They are new to FBS and, of course, there will be initial competitive gaps. That hasn't stopped BC from playing Umass several times during that same period, with several more games scheduled over the next few years. I was at the BC/Uconn game in 2000 when Uconn was transitioning to FBS. BC won that game 55-3. While BC won all of the subsequent three games against Uconn as well, they were more competitive. I would expect that Umass will be more competitive in the future as well.

Uconn fans often like to cite BC's unwillingness to play Uconn. However, let me ask you: why hasn't Uconn scheduled more games with Umass other than the "one-and-done."??

One of the biggest reasons UConn and UMass didn't play between when UConn moved up and 2 years ago was that UConn probably didn't pay teams for "buy" games against FCS teams or didn't pay as much as other teams we played during that period, BC twice, Kansas State twice, NC State, Texas Tech and Michigan. I have no idea what the reason was but in college athletics its usually all about the money.

(01-17-2014 12:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 11:47 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 07:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  keep in mind Notre Dame is a member for non-football sports. That is another reason to take Cincinnati to fill in gao between Notre Dame and Pitt.

of course if ND and cincy end up joining ACC full time, they will not be in the same pod.

I don't think that ACC basketball has any gaps. ND CLEARLY doesn't mind playing on the east coast, and a game in the Chicago area every other year isn't going to kill any ACC team. SU used to play in the same conference as ND (Chi area), DePaul (Chi), and Marquette (Wisc.), and we survived. I would MUCH rather have Georgetown filling in the UMD hole. GU has better non-football, better ACC rivalries, and better academics.

UC has a good athletic dept., but I don't see what they add that is worth anything to the ACC. IMHO, they would do great in the Big XII, and the Big XII has a MASSIVE gap that UC could help fill. That's where UC should go.

I think that UH would do well there, too. Winning back Houston would be excellent for recruiting. It's not coincidence that OU has billboards in Houston advertising their football program. They miss A&M.

I don't think the ACC is missing anything as is, but if they needed a couple new markets to get ESPN to give the ACC Network a go, I think UC's market, recruiting area, competitive performance, and solid athletic department would be enough to receive an invite. Absent that premise though, there isn't much reason for the ACC to make a move.

UC would fit much better in the ACC than the Big XII IMO. I don't foresee us going anywhere in the near future, but the ACC would make more sense from our end.

I forgot about recruiting. Ohio has some solid recruits. I agree, though. I don't think that UC is moving. It's a shame, too. There are a number of power teams that don't belong, and UC more than deserves their place.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think that UC would fit the ACC better than the Big XII?

Editorial side note: If UC can't get into the Big XII (which is probably the case), I would love to see SMU, UH, UC, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, UL, Tulsa, USM, and Ark St. in a conference, with Xavier and Creighton as basketball-only schools. Obviously that won't happen, but it would be a great conference if it did. IMHO, it would be very competitive in basketball and football, and there would be a ton of real rivalries. It would also have some GREAT recruiting.

Cincinnati is an urban school, smack in the middle of a pretty big city. We have always been connected to the east coast and almost all of our recruiting is done there. Culturally, we fit with the OLD big east better than either ACC/B12, but since most of those teams are now ACC I think we fit best with Pitt, Louisville, Boston College, Miami in particular.

All of that said, UC's biggest strength is just simply being good at sports. They have about an 8 year head start on what UCF is now doing in football and basketball has a very strong brand. The best thing that can happen for UC is just for all the other nonsense to matter less and improving a conference in sports to matter more. Oh, and the sooner this happens the better before the realignment kills off all the positive momentum of fan support.

(01-17-2014 12:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I forgot about recruiting. Ohio has some solid recruits. I agree, though. I don't think that UC is moving. It's a shame, too. There are a number of power teams that don't belong, and UC more than deserves their place.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think that UC would fit the ACC better than the Big XII?

Editorial side note: If UC can't get into the Big XII (which is probably the case), I would love to see SMU, UH, UC, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, UL, Tulsa, USM, and Ark St. in a conference, with Xavier and Creighton as basketball-only schools. Obviously that won't happen, but it would be a great conference if it did. IMHO, it would be very competitive in basketball and football, and there would be a ton of real rivalries. It would also have some GREAT recruiting.

As to why I believe UC would fit better in the ACC than Big XII, I think its because of where UC is headed as a university. They don't really fit well right now, but UC has been going through a complete transformation as a university for about 20 years now. The last 10 even more so. UC has been working on this for a long time and it's not close to over.

I have discussed the university's long term vision with some admins in the business college, and from their discussions with university leadership, the long term plan makes UC look an awful lot like an ACC school. Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech are the best two comparisons I can make. I know those are vastly different schools, but its hard to pigeonhole something like this.

They just don't fit in well with schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and such. Those schools are fantastic and I would be thrilled to be in the Big 12, but when comparing the two, I think the ACC would end up as the better fit in the long run.

I think most ACC schools don't see UC as a good fit because of what UC has traditionally been. I don't blame them. I think the old perception still exists in some respect, but when looking at the future, I think it makes a lot of sense. I could not be more pleased with our leadership right now. Either way, the American is our conference, and I think it's a pretty good one at that.

Why would anyone start such a stupid and unbelievable thread?

(01-17-2014 09:45 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 12:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I forgot about recruiting. Ohio has some solid recruits. I agree, though. I don't think that UC is moving. It's a shame, too. There are a number of power teams that don't belong, and UC more than deserves their place.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think that UC would fit the ACC better than the Big XII?

Editorial side note: If UC can't get into the Big XII (which is probably the case), I would love to see SMU, UH, UC, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, UL, Tulsa, USM, and Ark St. in a conference, with Xavier and Creighton as basketball-only schools. Obviously that won't happen, but it would be a great conference if it did. IMHO, it would be very competitive in basketball and football, and there would be a ton of real rivalries. It would also have some GREAT recruiting.

As to why I believe UC would fit better in the ACC than Big XII, I think its because of where UC is headed as a university. They don't really fit well right now, but UC has been going through a complete transformation as a university for about 20 years now. The last 10 even more so. UC has been working on this for a long time and it's not close to over.

I have discussed the university's long term vision with some admins in the business college, and from their discussions with university leadership, the long term plan makes UC look an awful lot like an ACC school. Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech are the best two comparisons I can make. I know those are vastly different schools, but its hard to pigeonhole something like this.

They just don't fit in well with schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and such. Those schools are fantastic and I would be thrilled to be in the Big 12, but when comparing the two, I think the ACC would end up as the better fit in the long run.

I think most ACC schools don't see UC as a good fit because of what UC has traditionally been. I don't blame them. I think the old perception still exists in some respect, but when looking at the future, I think it makes a lot of sense. I could not be more pleased with our leadership right now. Either way, the American is our conference, and I think it's a pretty good one at that.

With a $1 billion endowment, UC has a head start over most of its competitors. The issue is can it come in first place and do so in a timely manner?

Also, as you become more "ACC qualified," whatever that term means, I'd think the Big Ten would take a closer look at you with the goal of thwarting the ACC's attempt to bridge PA and KY to Indiana and entrenching Notre Dame deeper into the ACC.

(01-16-2014 10:06 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 07:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  keep in mind Notre Dame is a member for non-football sports. That is another reason to take Cincinnati to fill in gao between Notre Dame and Pitt.

of course if ND and cincy end up joining ACC full time, they will not be in the same pod.

I don't think that ACC basketball has any gaps. ND CLEARLY doesn't mind playing on the east coast, and a game in the Chicago area every other year isn't going to kill any ACC team. SU used to play in the same conference as ND (Chi area), DePaul (Chi), and Marquette (Wisc.), and we survived. I would MUCH rather have Georgetown filling in the UMD hole. GU has better non-football, better ACC rivalries, and better academics.

UC has a good athletic dept., but I don't see what they add that is worth anything to the ACC. IMHO, they would do great in the Big XII, and the Big XII has a MASSIVE gap that UC could help fill. That's where UC should go.

I think that UH would do well there, too. Winning back Houston would be excellent for recruiting. It's not coincidence that OU has billboards in Houston advertising their football program. They miss A&M.

While UC makes a little bit of sense in bridging the gap to WVU, they would only detract the current monetary payouts per member in the Big12. Their addition would also require an adjustment to the number of times that the north teams can play in Texas and Oklahoma per year. So they are a no go. Central Florida would make another island and decrease payout for the conference members. Again, no go. If you can't add to the current members payouts, we don't want to add you to our conference. Hopefully, the ACC pushing an advanced form of league championship game will put all of this expansion mess to bed.

IMO I think the best thing for UCF would be for USF to become a good team again. If UCF can string together five seasons of 8 or more wins between now and the end of the Big 12 conference they will be at the top of the list. USF being good makes UCF even more attractive as a package deal because it would give the Big 12 a strong foothold in Florida.

And your just lying to yourself if you think having games against Texas, WV, OU, types will not generate interest. Furthermore, SEC teams would begin to schedule home and homes with them consistently.

(01-17-2014 11:07 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:45 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 12:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I forgot about recruiting. Ohio has some solid recruits. I agree, though. I don't think that UC is moving. It's a shame, too. There are a number of power teams that don't belong, and UC more than deserves their place.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think that UC would fit the ACC better than the Big XII?

Editorial side note: If UC can't get into the Big XII (which is probably the case), I would love to see SMU, UH, UC, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, UL, Tulsa, USM, and Ark St. in a conference, with Xavier and Creighton as basketball-only schools. Obviously that won't happen, but it would be a great conference if it did. IMHO, it would be very competitive in basketball and football, and there would be a ton of real rivalries. It would also have some GREAT recruiting.

As to why I believe UC would fit better in the ACC than Big XII, I think its because of where UC is headed as a university. They don't really fit well right now, but UC has been going through a complete transformation as a university for about 20 years now. The last 10 even more so. UC has been working on this for a long time and it's not close to over.

I have discussed the university's long term vision with some admins in the business college, and from their discussions with university leadership, the long term plan makes UC look an awful lot like an ACC school. Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech are the best two comparisons I can make. I know those are vastly different schools, but its hard to pigeonhole something like this.

They just don't fit in well with schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and such. Those schools are fantastic and I would be thrilled to be in the Big 12, but when comparing the two, I think the ACC would end up as the better fit in the long run.

I think most ACC schools don't see UC as a good fit because of what UC has traditionally been. I don't blame them. I think the old perception still exists in some respect, but when looking at the future, I think it makes a lot of sense. I could not be more pleased with our leadership right now. Either way, the American is our conference, and I think it's a pretty good one at that.

With a $1 billion endowment, UC has a head start over most of its competitors. The issue is can it come in first place and do so in a timely manner?

Also, as you become more "ACC qualified," whatever that term means, I'd think the Big Ten would take a closer look at you with the goal of thwarting the ACC's attempt to bridge PA and KY to Indiana and entrench Notre Dame deeper into the ACC.

UC is literally the last team that the B10 teams would support, with tOSU leading that charge. Getting bigger and better right in their own back yard is not something they want to compete with. They're looking for punching bags in big markets far away from them. That much should be completely clear from their past few adds.

The ACC (with a conference TV channel) needs to look at various models
I'm not sure the revenue would support it but it should be looked at:

14-2 model

Add Nova (or Gtown/SJU) to all sports but FB

16-2 model
Add Nova (other candidate Gtown/SJU) to all sports but FB
Add Cincy/UConn (other candidates USF/UCF/Temple)

16-4 Super model
Add Nova, Gtown +SJU to all sports but FB
Add Cincy/UConn (other candidates USF/UCF/Temple)

(01-17-2014 12:20 PM)uccheese Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 11:07 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:45 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 12:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I forgot about recruiting. Ohio has some solid recruits. I agree, though. I don't think that UC is moving. It's a shame, too. There are a number of power teams that don't belong, and UC more than deserves their place.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think that UC would fit the ACC better than the Big XII?

Editorial side note: If UC can't get into the Big XII (which is probably the case), I would love to see SMU, UH, UC, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, UL, Tulsa, USM, and Ark St. in a conference, with Xavier and Creighton as basketball-only schools. Obviously that won't happen, but it would be a great conference if it did. IMHO, it would be very competitive in basketball and football, and there would be a ton of real rivalries. It would also have some GREAT recruiting.

As to why I believe UC would fit better in the ACC than Big XII, I think its because of where UC is headed as a university. They don't really fit well right now, but UC has been going through a complete transformation as a university for about 20 years now. The last 10 even more so. UC has been working on this for a long time and it's not close to over.

I have discussed the university's long term vision with some admins in the business college, and from their discussions with university leadership, the long term plan makes UC look an awful lot like an ACC school. Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech are the best two comparisons I can make. I know those are vastly different schools, but its hard to pigeonhole something like this.

They just don't fit in well with schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and such. Those schools are fantastic and I would be thrilled to be in the Big 12, but when comparing the two, I think the ACC would end up as the better fit in the long run.

I think most ACC schools don't see UC as a good fit because of what UC has traditionally been. I don't blame them. I think the old perception still exists in some respect, but when looking at the future, I think it makes a lot of sense. I could not be more pleased with our leadership right now. Either way, the American is our conference, and I think it's a pretty good one at that.

With a $1 billion endowment, UC has a head start over most of its competitors. The issue is can it come in first place and do so in a timely manner?

Also, as you become more "ACC qualified," whatever that term means, I'd think the Big Ten would take a closer look at you with the goal of thwarting the ACC's attempt to bridge PA and KY to Indiana and entrenching Notre Dame deeper into the ACC.

UC is literally the last team that the B10 teams would support, with tOSU leading that charge. Getting bigger and better right in their own back yard is not something they want to compete with. They're looking for punching bags in big markets far away from them. That much should be completely clear from their past few adds.

You never know. Crazy things have happened like Maryland, a founding ACC member, moving to the Big Ten.

(01-17-2014 01:07 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 12:20 PM)uccheese Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 11:07 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Also, as you become more "ACC qualified," whatever that term means, I'd think the Big Ten would take a closer look at you with the goal of thwarting the ACC's attempt to bridge PA and KY to Indiana and entrenching Notre Dame deeper into the ACC.

UC is literally the last team that the B10 teams would support, with tOSU leading that charge.

You never know. Crazy things have happened like Maryland, a founding ACC member, moving to the Big Ten.

Maryland is a new market for the B1G, and a non-threat/non-rival to any incumbent member of the B1G.

Each of the following four scenarios have a roughly equal chance of occurring in the next 30 years:

Cincinnati : B1G
ECU : ACC
Tulane : SEC
San Diego State : PAC12

(01-17-2014 03:06 AM)Groo Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:12 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 10:06 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 07:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote:  keep in mind Notre Dame is a member for non-football sports. That is another reason to take Cincinnati to fill in gao between Notre Dame and Pitt.

of course if ND and cincy end up joining ACC full time, they will not be in the same pod.

I don't think that ACC basketball has any gaps. ND CLEARLY doesn't mind playing on the east coast, and a game in the Chicago area every other year isn't going to kill any ACC team. SU used to play in the same conference as ND (Chi area), DePaul (Chi), and Marquette (Wisc.), and we survived. I would MUCH rather have Georgetown filling in the UMD hole. GU has better non-football, better ACC rivalries, and better academics.

UC has a good athletic dept., but I don't see what they add that is worth anything to the ACC. IMHO, they would do great in the Big XII, and the Big XII has a MASSIVE gap that UC could help fill. That's where UC should go.

I think that UH would do well there, too. Winning back Houston would be excellent for recruiting. It's not coincidence that OU has billboards in Houston advertising their football program. They miss A&M.

While UC makes a little bit of sense in bridging the gap to WVU, they would only detract the current monetary payouts per member in the Big12. Their addition would also require an adjustment to the number of times that the north teams can play in Texas and Oklahoma per year. So they are a no go. Central Florida would make another island and decrease payout for the conference members. Again, no go. If you can't add to the current members payouts, we don't want to add you to our conference. Hopefully, the ACC pushing an advanced form of league championship game will put all of this expansion mess to bed.

Not sure the ACC's proposal would be to allow 10-team conferences the freedom to host a CG.

If they want Big12 support, then yes they would. At the very least, they wouldn't stand in the way of a P-5 conference hosting their own championship game according to their own merits. Not that the conference needs a championship game. Round robins tend to take care of that concern. Regardless, if teams aren't adding to the payout then they shouldn't be (and won't be) added. And a CCG isn't enough to offset any significant additions not from a P-5 conference.

They may not give a damn about Big 12 support. The ACC, Big Ten and SEC will all almost assuredly support it since they all have 14 schools. Same for C-USA. The Pac 12, American and MWC all have 12 schools. The MAC has 13. The Sun Belt has 11.

Doesn't seem like a big deal to: 1) continue to require 12 teams in order to have a CG and greater-than-12 teams to have the option to host a uni-division CG, or 2) continue to require 12 teams in order to have a CG and the option for that CG to be a uni-division CG.

There is no reason for any conference to support the Big 12 if the Big 12 wishes to make a uni-division CG an option for a 10-team conference.

(01-17-2014 12:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC (with a conference TV channel) needs to look at various models
I'm not sure the revenue would support it but it should be looked at:

14-2 model

Add Nova (or Gtown/SJU) to all sports but FB

16-2 model
Add Nova (other candidate Gtown/SJU) to all sports but FB
Add Cincy/UConn (other candidates USF/UCF/Temple)

16-4 Super model
Add Nova, Gtown +SJU to all sports but FB
Add Cincy/UConn (other candidates USF/UCF/Temple)

That makes sense.

IMO, the bottom line is the ACC will need a network to compete long term with the SEC, B1G and PAC. Otherwise, you are bidding out your Tier 1 rights so someone else can make a profit on them while its only a matter of time before the B1G, SEC and PAC bring Tier 1 rights under their umbrella for total control of profits.

Under the current model I think Cincy would add value by state population of 11 million. That would be one of the larger states in the ACC footprint.

I think with matchups against ND, UL, Pitt and the other national brands in the ACC it would be a buy in the state of Ohio.

I don't know what the ratio of tv sets per population is, but around $1/month subscription would mean, what, maybe $2-3 million per ACC school in revenue for the year from Ohio?

The ACC moved into B1G territory (Pa) and SEC territory (UL), so I doubt you would be worried any more about where the flag is planted.

The network model gives schools like Cincy value, given the right circumstances.

Anyone who doesn't think the ACC will eventually have it's own network is delusional. It's not a matter of "if", but "when".

(01-16-2014 11:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It's been said before, but I guess it bears repeating: So long as Florida State and Miami/FL are both in the ACC, neither UCF nor USF will be.

It really is that simple.

With UConn, the calculus is different. I think they bring a lot to the table, and quite honestly I think they bring more than Louisville, even though the ACC obviously formed the opposite conclusion. But even with UConn, you have the problem of numbers (ACC is already a 14-team league for football, and a 15-team league for everything else), and the fact that there is still bad blood dating back the war between the ACC and the old Big East from 2003-2011. That problem (along with several others) will have to be solved before UConn gets the call they're waiting for.

I agree with everything here. Louisville was brought in to boost football in addition to basketball. Although UConn makes more sense from an institutional standpoint, Louisville has more cache as a football program. It reminds me a lot of the FSU decision.

If a ruling is determined that states "so long as a conference has 12 football playing schools they can host a championship with or without divisions", we will see the Big XII expand by two. It really makes no sense to force conferences to have divisions when the absence of them clearly offers more benefits. Back when conferences were smaller and there were less games per season schools would sometimes rarely play within the same league.

(01-17-2014 01:26 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:07 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 12:20 PM)uccheese Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 11:07 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Also, as you become more "ACC qualified," whatever that term means, I'd think the Big Ten would take a closer look at you with the goal of thwarting the ACC's attempt to bridge PA and KY to Indiana and entrenching Notre Dame deeper into the ACC.

UC is literally the last team that the B10 teams would support, with tOSU leading that charge.

You never know. Crazy things have happened like Maryland, a founding ACC member, moving to the Big Ten.

Maryland is a new market for the B1G, and a non-threat/non-rival to any incumbent member of the B1G.

Each of the following four scenarios have a roughly equal chance of occurring in the next 30 years:

Cincinnati : B1G
ECU : ACC
Tulane : SEC
San Diego State : PAC12

My money is on Tulane out of that group. They've at least been in the conference. Heck, they founded it.

if B-12 wants CCG, they have to add 2, Their not gonna find support for game with 10.
CCG pays for 2 additions, B-12 has options for 2 more
BYU & Somebody out west
Conn & Cinn
USF & UCF
Hous & Memphis
B-12 has same problem they always had, no markets outside of Tex
8 eastern schools get B-12 to 70 million [3.9 avg], up from 40 million [4.0 avg]

(01-18-2014 01:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  If a ruling is determined that states "so long as a conference has 12 football playing schools they can host a championship with or without divisions", we will see the Big XII expand by two. It really makes no sense to force conferences to have divisions when the absence of them clearly offers more benefits.

All true.

Quote:Back when conferences were smaller and there were less games per season schools would sometimes rarely play within the same league.

Just for example, Georgia and LSU went 25 years (1953-78) without playing at all. And despite the geographic proximity, Georgia and Tennessee really didn't play that often until the SEC created east/west divisions in 1991.

(01-18-2014 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:26 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Each of the following four scenarios have a roughly equal chance of occurring in the next 30 years:

Cincinnati : B1G
ECU : ACC
Tulane : SEC
San Diego State : PAC12

My money is on Tulane out of that group. They've at least been in the conference. Heck, they founded it.

Louisiana State would use every ounce of political pressure it could possibly grab on to in order to prevent that from happening. People lose sight of this, because Tulane has been athletically-irrelevant in recent years. But believe me LSU views Tulane as an enemy and would never ever Ever allow us back in, no matter what.