(12-09-2014 01:16 PM)mlb Wrote:  I can 2nd the view that UT fans are totally happy in the SEC. I know several and in general they laugh at every other conference (including the ACC). None of them want to stop playing Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn... any of the big name programs to go to play in the ACC.

Yep, what I was shocked to not hear was GTS wanting to renew the oldest football rivalry in the South; Auburn vs Georgia Tech which was played annually from 1892 until its demise in the late 70's. The two are only 90 miles apart and have a wonderfully unpredictable series with many upsets. Both are engineering schools, but the flavor was always city boys versus country boys.

(12-09-2014 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:16 PM)mlb Wrote:  I can 2nd the view that UT fans are totally happy in the SEC. I know several and in general they laugh at every other conference (including the ACC). None of them want to stop playing Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn... any of the big name programs to go to play in the ACC.

Yep, what I was shocked to not hear was GTS wanting to renew the oldest football rivalry in the South; Auburn vs Georgia Tech which was played annually from 1892 until its demise in the late 70's. The two are only 90 miles apart and have a wonderfully unpredictable series with many upsets. Both are engineering schools, but the flavor was always city boys versus country boys.

They have played some since the seventies. I saw Bo Jackson @ GT in, I think it was, 1985.

(12-09-2014 01:38 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:16 PM)mlb Wrote:  I can 2nd the view that UT fans are totally happy in the SEC. I know several and in general they laugh at every other conference (including the ACC). None of them want to stop playing Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn... any of the big name programs to go to play in the ACC.

Yep, what I was shocked to not hear was GTS wanting to renew the oldest football rivalry in the South; Auburn vs Georgia Tech which was played annually from 1892 until its demise in the late 70's. The two are only 90 miles apart and have a wonderfully unpredictable series with many upsets. Both are engineering schools, but the flavor was always city boys versus country boys.

They have played some since the seventies. I saw Bo Jackson @ GT in, I think it was, 1985.

I was there for that mid 4th quarter sweep around the left end he made for the Auburn victory that day. It was a well played and too close for comfort game by the underdog Yellow Jackets, but typical of the series indeed. I think that was one of only several home and home series scheduled since 1977-78.

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Whom would/should the ACC choose between
Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, WVU, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, USF, UCF?

The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

(12-08-2014 05:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the ACC has actually done pretty well with what it had to play with. Last year, there was a somewhat serious amount of chatter about the Big XII going after Clemson and FSU, which would have been deadly to the long term situation at the ACC. Unlike the Big XII, the ACC recognized that it was in a bad spot and had to act to get out of it. First, they needed to grab teams from the old Big East to stop the AAC from being part of the P5. Then they had to stop the Big XII from encroaching. Then they had to fend off the B1G.

They also, for some unknown reason, had to exclude WVU (probably due to internal politics in the AAC).

They saw all this coming and executed pretty well. But they were helped, immensely by other conferences acting stupidly. First dumb move - by the Big XII, which didn't take Louisville (a team that had sitting on a mens final four, a womens final four, a CWS berth, and a BCS bowl win) to go along with WVU. Dumb, dumb, dumb of the Big XII. Second dumb move was by the B1G, which filled up on a feast of Rutgers and Maryland when they probably could have gotten Georgia Tech and/or any number of better programs.

So the ACC took Louisville and got a scheduling agreement with ND.

As far as the ACC's next move....Stand pat. The threat isn't that another conference out expands them, but rather raids them (and for programs that mean something in the football order of things). Keep Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, and VT happy, instead of deferring to UNC/UVa. Because there really isn't much to be added that helps the ACC, other than adding WVU.

Even if TCU had managed to make the playoffs, its a bad situation for the Big XII. SEC competing with them in their Texas homeland. No real interest in the league outside of its Texoma heartland. The loss of market dominance in Kansas City. Pitt moving to the ACC takes away some of the marketing potential of WVU in Pittsburgh.

The GOR in the Big XII ends in six years. If there are a couple more seasons like this one, teams will start looking for the exits again. And this time, it will probably be OU/OSU saying screw this, we need to look out for number 1. If they went to the SEC....or even the Pac 12....it could force UT's hand. And that would probably be very bad news for Tech, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, and probably Kansas, WVU, and Kansas State. This time, everyone knows that the Big XII will be under threat, especially if OU refuses to sign an extension of the GOR. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to pull off four of FSU, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Clemson, and VT first. ACC needs to keep them happy.

In short the threat is still there. But adding Cincy or Uconn isn't going to help the ACC. Nor will it help the Big XII

The bolded is based off the oft repeated and unsubstantiated assumption that (a) the Big Ten had any serious interest in other ACC schools and (b) those schools had any interest in leaving the ACC. My Maryland bias aside, given that TV markets were driving the bus, I definitely think the Big Ten preferred Maryland (DC and to a lesser extent Baltimore) and Rutgers (NY/NJ) over UVA and UNC. Georgia Tech has the huge Atlanta TV market but do not think the Big Ten would want to engage in the Big 12's stretched geography with WVA. Unless Atlanta can be airlifted somewhere into Virginia, do not think Georgia Tech was a serious consideration.

My stronger argument is actually the second point - why would UVA , UNC or Georgia Tech seriously consider leaving the ACC for the Big Ten? The first two are very influential in the conference and are swimming in money. With the latter the geography simply doesn't work and guessing Tech's monetary situation is also far better than UMD. Maryland and Rutgers have very low endowments for schools of their size and academic weight and both their athletic departments are losing money. Maryland also long felt like the red headed step child in the ACC - despite its founding status the school was never exactly in the inner circle of power. Maryland had monetary and institutional reasons to leave the ACC that UNC, UVA and Georgia Tech do not (Rutgers was obviously getting a lottery ticket out of the floundering Big East so nothing needs to be said there).

This board hardly looks beyond the dollars and cents when just making assumptions that "oh this school will bolt because 'x' conference has a better payout." Schools like UVA and UNC are filthy rich and do not need the money. Is it worth trading their status and dominance within the ACC to make more money as a secondary program in the Big Ten? This applies to the SEC as well, the moreso because UVA, UNC and Georgia Tech likely consider the SEC collective to be academically inferior (based off anecdotal experience with people from these schools).

(12-08-2014 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

Crappy football and great basketball with history. The NC schools would like to play Kansas. UConn has only had their brand of crappy football for a decade.

Pass on Kansas.

ESPN didn't.

That's an important point that is frequently ignored and more frequently misunderstood. Three years ago the SEC had interest in Florida State and Clemson. And please spare me the gentlemen's agreement garbage. The point I'm making is that the SEC was enlightened by ESPN that only part of Roy Kramer's old vision was to be pursued. Missouri was suggested instead and A&M had been in touch since 1991. The deal was struck. But it was also made very clear that the SEC and ACC were both in the ESPN family and that no raiding would happen between the two. If any movement between them was ever to take place it would be handled in house and agreed upon by both parties. Only one scenario would tempt that provision, but that is another story. Suffice it to say that the ACC was an ESPN instrument to deliver them properties they wanted from the Big East. The SEC has been an instrument to deliver them properties they wanted from the Big 12. Arkansas in '91 was a bridge to the old SWC and South Carolina was seen as a bridge to the ACC. ESPN encouraged one bridge to be closed and the other to be utilized. Missouri and A&M are part of the allure that the SEC now holds out to the few remaining properties of interest to ESPN in the Big 12. Kansas is such a property and that is why ESPN signed them to a nice T3 deal. They did so massively for Texas to prevent the Texahoma deal from coming to fruition. The PACN is independent and those properties that left the Big 12 would be of no use to ESPN in the PAC. But the T3 rights also were to bind certain properties from being easily available to the Big 10, at least for a short duration of 7 or so yearsd (the LHN until 2031).

ESPN hemmed in the Big 10 by acquiring Big East properties through the ACC and Big 12 properties through T3 rights deals and the SEC. Missouri was a key stop. Texas A&M merely put pressure upon Texas to rethink their comfortable nest.

Delany has to move East because so far he's cut off from the key AAU properties in the West. He's not interested in Iowa State so ESPN nailed down Kansas and Texas. Oklahoma slipped into a FOX T3 deal, but then they are a far cry from AAU status and landlocked by Missouri and Kansas and Texas.

That is why Connecticut is important whether the football schools like them or not. Connecticut with B.C., Syracuse and Pitt essentially encircles Rutgers, Maryland and Penn State. They will form a lonely and somewhat lesser presence in New England and the Northeast when the ACC presence there is stronger and more complete. West Virginia is inconsequential to the Big 10 because of academics. Whether they are in the SEC, ACC, or a friendly surviving Big 12 is of little consequence to ESPN. But they would reconnect the ACC footprint dented by Maryland's departure.

If the SEC can be used to land Oklahoma and Kansas that is a huge plus for ESPN and a loss for FOX. If Texas really chooses to eschew what Aggie chooses the ACC and Notre Dame do hold an allure for them. But, unlike the popular idea that the Horns need to bring the two Texas privates with them and garner for themselves a kind of independence like N.D. has, the ACC should be looking at using Texas to get N.D. to fully commit. But if this is to be done without having to accommodate Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State then it needs to be announced in about 2 years with the requisite 1 year notification to the Big 12. That leaves a very doable exit of only 3 years remaining on the GOR and comes just in time to disappoint FOX prior to the Big 10's renewal.

Without Big 12 targets and no opportunity to expand further Eastward then the gap in income can start to be closed, and should Texas come to the ACC just in time to morph the LHN into the ACCN and add 27 million more viewers and hopefully a fully involved Notre Dame. College football and basketball would then be redefined by rivalry between the SEC and ACC. That would make us all a lot more money and for ESPN. It would pressure the PAC to acquiesce to ESPN for distribution and it would be Bristol's revenge upon Delany's rejection.

We have more to do and more to make by cooperating in the family business than in scheming to raid one another (which won't happen anyway since ESPN won't pay for it).

I respect your posts and analysis, but you're saying most of the above (especially the first paragraph) as if its authoritative. Do not mean to call you out, but guessing you do not have any actual insider knowledge of what happens within the corridors of power of ESPN, the SEC or ACC. There are a lot of assumptions and conjecture here based on events that occurred that while insightful, are nonetheless assumptions and conjecture. Your narrative is one explanation as to what may have been driving these events, but we have no idea if that is how things actually went down.

(12-09-2014 12:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:24 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:02 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The ACC will do nothing. They are in the middle of changing their income model and will wait and see how much the ACC network brings in. that will define for them the next move.

Also with the B10 getting a new first tier contract in 2016, they will wait to see where the market is at and how much they can squeeze out of it. They added Pitt and Cuse and only added $1 million... but it helped them land Notre Dame, which was good for overall prestige and power.

The ACC is in the position where they dont need to do anything for a while and wont.

Unless the B10 takes UVA and the SEC takes UNC and Duke.

UVA, UNC, and Duke aren't going anywhere. Like Texas and Oklahoma, they will be in the conference where they are the blue bloods and call the shots, for better or worse.

Someone gets it - these schools have absolutely no incentive to leave or cause the dissolution of the ACC.

(12-09-2014 12:39 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 05:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Hold tight. Press home the enormous TV set advantage with an ACC network. When you start leaving the SEC in the dust on payouts, then move to try to bring in Tennessee.

TV sets don't do you much good if you don't get the ratings. The SEC is still king based on the CCG ratings on Saturday. 7.7.

You'd be surprised how much ratings are overrated. Quantity of TV sets is definitely what seems to matter (that and negotiating leverage courtesy of FOX) - doubt the Big Ten would have gone after Maryland or Rutgers if it was otherwise. Those sweet in-market carriage fee increases the Big Ten Network successfully negotiated happened regardless of the potential ratings. No difference from Silicon Valley start-up acquisitions - nonsensical money gets thrown at companies with tons of users but no actual income.

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Whom would/should the ACC choose between
Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, WVU, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, USF, UCF?

The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

(12-09-2014 12:02 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The ACC will do nothing. They are in the middle of changing their income model and will wait and see how much the ACC network brings in. that will define for them the next move.

Also with the B10 getting a new first tier contract in 2016, they will wait to see where the market is at and how much they can squeeze out of it. They added Pitt and Cuse and only added $1 million... but it helped them land Notre Dame, which was good for overall prestige and power.

The ACC is in the position where they dont need to do anything for a while and wont.

Pitt and Syracuse added $2 million per school to the Acc.

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Whom would/should the ACC choose between
Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, WVU, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, USF, UCF?

The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

Blumenthal...enuf said.

(12-09-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:38 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:16 PM)mlb Wrote:  I can 2nd the view that UT fans are totally happy in the SEC. I know several and in general they laugh at every other conference (including the ACC). None of them want to stop playing Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn... any of the big name programs to go to play in the ACC.

Yep, what I was shocked to not hear was GTS wanting to renew the oldest football rivalry in the South; Auburn vs Georgia Tech which was played annually from 1892 until its demise in the late 70's. The two are only 90 miles apart and have a wonderfully unpredictable series with many upsets. Both are engineering schools, but the flavor was always city boys versus country boys.

They have played some since the seventies. I saw Bo Jackson @ GT in, I think it was, 1985.

I was there for that mid 4th quarter sweep around the left end he made for the Auburn victory that day. It was a well played and too close for comfort game by the underdog Yellow Jackets, but typical of the series indeed. I think that was one of only several home and home series scheduled since 1977-78.

I remember the sweep around the left like it was yesterday; I was a Tech student at the time......painful that was. It seemed like it was 70-80 yards, but that I don't recollect for sure.

(12-09-2014 01:06 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 05:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Hold tight. Press home the enormous TV set advantage with an ACC network. When you start leaving the SEC in the dust on payouts, then move to try to bring in Tennessee.

First you must offer an on field product that compels those TV sets be turned on. However your dichotomous approach to sports emphasis will never work. But keep dreaming big. Maybe by 2021 when those sublet rights are back in hand to allow you to form your own network then finally that payout dust settling down upon the ACC won't seem quite so insurmountable.

I know well this isn't plausible until at least the ACC GOR expires. But I'm hoping by then the ACCN is in position to really pull ahead and push away from the other conferences. And I think TN : ACC :: Arkansas : Big 12. They have done quite well in their current conference ... but there is probably an even better fit to be had next door. All the far away SEC games haven't held the same luster after the Fulmer collapse. Games against Florida and Bama aren't some huge national draw any more. Kentucky and Vanderbilt are rivalries in name only, even with a hugely down TN program. You'd have natural rivalries with Clemson and VT as well as nearby games against WF and UofL. It would actually be a historically renewed rivalry against GT.

Much respect GTS. We all have our fantasies and yours is a doozy. The only reason Tennessee's games with Florida and Alabama aren't huge national draws anymore is the sad state of the Tennessee football program lately. But I have heard no dissatisfaction from Volunteer fans with their membership in the SEC, only displeasure at not being considered an elite team any longer. Jones is doing a good job with them and his recruiting class this year is unbelievably good. As much as I hate Tennessee, they wouldn't give up rivalries with Alabama, Florida and Georgia for the chance to play anyone in the ACC, including Georgia Tech.

While I'm at it, what ACC games would you consider "some huge national draw?" Miami and Florida State used to be, but not any more since Miami fell off. Sorry, can't think of another that moves the needle. Nope, don't think Tennessee is going anywhere.

Miami/FSU may not be as huge as it once was since Miami "fell off," but it is still huge and was the 6th highest rated game of this season:
Top 6 Highest Rated games for 2014

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Whom would/should the ACC choose between
Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, WVU, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, USF, UCF?

The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

Actually, VT was part of the lawsuit as well, but dropped out when an invitation was forthcoming. But your point remains valid since VT joined in the lawsuit and still was invited to the Acc.

(12-09-2014 02:59 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:02 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The ACC will do nothing. They are in the middle of changing their income model and will wait and see how much the ACC network brings in. that will define for them the next move.

Also with the B10 getting a new first tier contract in 2016, they will wait to see where the market is at and how much they can squeeze out of it. They added Pitt and Cuse and only added $1 million... but it helped them land Notre Dame, which was good for overall prestige and power.

The ACC is in the position where they dont need to do anything for a while and wont.

Pitt and Syracuse added $2 million per school to the Acc.

When the ACCN is in place, they will have brought much, much more than just $2M to the ACC.

(12-09-2014 03:27 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

Actually, VT was part of the lawsuit as well, but dropped out when an invitation was forthcoming. But your point remains valid since VT joined in the lawsuit and still was invited to the Acc.

I did not know that, thanks - it must have been fairly short-lived.

(12-09-2014 03:27 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 06:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The ACC would love Kansas.

How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

Actually, VT was part of the lawsuit as well, but dropped out when an invitation was forthcoming. But your point remains valid since VT joined in the lawsuit and still was invited to the Acc.

Well, based on the reports at the time, VT's invitation was more of a case of the ACC having no choice as they were not going to be able or expand without UVA's vote due to some political maneuvering in VA; and UVA's vote was dependent on a VT invitation. The VT move was also relatively early in the suit. Of the others, Rutgers and WVA never were invited to the ACC. Only Pitt received an invite after the lawsuit; and as TexMark noted, and IMO, there was a key difference between Pitt and Uconn relative to this whole issue.

(12-09-2014 03:48 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:27 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  How is Kansas different than UConn great basketball, crappy footbal?

They didn't sue the ACC.

Pittsburgh, WVU and Rutgers sued too, and VTech threatened to sue if the VA Governor didn't get behind their push. But don't let facts interrupt this debunked narrative.

Actually, VT was part of the lawsuit as well, but dropped out when an invitation was forthcoming. But your point remains valid since VT joined in the lawsuit and still was invited to the Acc.

Well, based on the reports at the time, VT's invitation was more of a case of the ACC having no choice as they were not going to be able or expand without UVA's vote due to some political maneuvering in VA; and UVA's vote was dependent on a VT invitation. The VT move was also relatively early in the suit. Of the others, Rutgers and WVA never were invited to the ACC. Only Pitt received an invite after the lawsuit; and as TexMark noted, and IMO, there was a key difference between Pitt and Uconn relative to this whole issue.

The VA AG and the Conn AG were the ones leading the charge. They were the only two schools that had spent significant amounts of money on stadium upgrades recently. They needed to show actual damages for the suit to mean anything so those two states were at the forefront.

UVA had pitched VT for expansion but it didn't catch on. The most popular choices became Miami, BC, and Syracuse. Once it became clear that UVA was the deciding vote they forced VT back into the discussion. The Governor really only reiterated for the public that UVA would not be allowed to vote in any way that would hurt VT. Casteen and the UVA board were already behind VT. Now if either Duke or UNC had decided to vote there would have been nothing UVA could have done about it. But they wouldn't have been allowed to vote for expansion. Casteen, Duke, and UNC were the ones that got VT into the ACC, not the Governor.

Once VA dropped out of the lawsuit the Conn AG took it to another level trying to sue the AD's and Presidents at BC and Miami. He made a lot of enemies in the process.

(12-08-2014 08:34 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Which P5 team has been playing major football the least amount of time? Is it FSU?

Yeah and by a wide margin.

And they've accomplished more in that short amount of time on the football field than UNC ever will until the end of time.